text:
# Theory of electrical spin injection: Tunnel contacts as a solution of the conductivity mismatch problem

## Abstract

Theory of electrical spin injection from a ferromagnetic (FM) metal into a normal (N) conductor is presented. We show that tunnel contacts (T) can dramatically increase spin injection and solve the problem of the mismatch in the conductivities of a FM metal and a semiconductor microstructure. We also present explicit expressions for the spin-valve resistance of FM-T-N- and FM-T-N-T-FM-junctions with tunnel contacts at the interfaces and show that the resistance includes both positive and negative contributions (Kapitza resistance and injection conductivity, respectively).

Introduction. Since the seminal proposal by Datta and Das of a spin transistor based on spin precession controlled by an external electric field via spin-orbit (SO) coupling, there exists persistent and growing interest in spin injection into semiconductor microstructures. For a spin transistor to work (i) long spin relaxation time in a semiconductor, (ii) gate voltage control of the SO coupling, and (iii) high spin injection coefficient are needed. Slow relaxation of electron spins in semiconductors has been established by optical experiments.  Modulation of the SO splitting at the Fermi level by gate voltage has been reported for both electrons and holes and for different semiconductor materials.  Theory of the gate voltage effect has been developed in many detail.

However, as distinct from spin injection from a FM source into a paramagnetic metal, very efficient and well documented experimentally,  spin injection from a similar source into a semiconductor  remains a challenging task. After numerous efforts, promising results have been reported recently. Unfortunately, spin polarization measured in Refs.  and  was only about 1%. Problems with injection from metallic contacts promoted the idea to use a semimagnetic semiconductor as a spin aligner,  and high degree of spin polarisation has been achieved in this way. However, FM metal sources remain an indispensable tool for room temperature devices.

Schmidt al. revealed that the basic obstacle for spin injection from a FM metal emitter into a semiconductor originates from the conductivity mismatch between these materials. They have shown, that in a diffusive regime the spin injection coefficient $`\gamma `$ is $`\gamma \sigma _N/\sigma _F1`$, where $`\sigma _N`$ and $`\sigma _F`$ are conductivities of the N (semiconductor) and FM (metallic emitter) contacts, respectively. Their result explains, in a natural way, the striking difference between emission from a FM metal into a paramagnetic metal with $`\sigma _N/\sigma _F1`$ and a semiconductor with $`\sigma _N/\sigma _F1`$. At first glance, the problem seems insurmountable. However, we show in this paper that insertion of a tunnel contact T at a FM-N interface can remedy it. This contact takes control over $`\gamma `$ and eliminates the conductivity mismatch. For this purpose, tunnel resistance $`r_c`$ does not need to be really large. It should only be larger than competing “effective resistances” making the total contact resistance:

$$r_cL_F/\sigma _F,\mathrm{min}\{L_N,w\}/\sigma _N,$$
(1)
where $`L_F`$ and $`L_N`$ are spin diffusion lengths in the FM and N conductors, respectively, and $`w`$ is the N conductor width.

It is our general conclusion that the spin injection coefficient is controlled by the element of a FM-T-N-junction having the largest effective resistance.

Since the dependence of the FM-T-N-T-FM-junction resistance $`_\mathrm{j}`$ on the mutual polarisation of FM electrodes (spin-valve effect) is used for spin injection detection, we have calculated $`_\mathrm{j}`$. It originates from the current conversion in the junction and includes, side by side with a positive term (Kapitza resistance), a negative term (injection conductivity) originating from spin injection and proportional to $`\gamma ^2`$. This term has never appeared in the literature before.

Theory of a FM-T-N-junction. To make the effect of a tunnel contact most clear, we simplify the problem of a FM-T-N-junction between semiinfinite FM $`(x<0)`$ and N $`(x>0)`$ conductors as much as possible. We apply the diffusion approximation and suppose that the T contact, at $`x=0`$, is spin selective, i.e., has different conductivities, $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_{}`$ and $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_{}`$, for up and down spins, respectively, and there is no spin relaxation in it. Therefore, the problem differs from that considered by van Son et al.. only by the presence of the T contact. Because of some subtleties in calculating the potential distribution near spin emitting contacts, we outline the procedure in some detail.

In the approximation linear in the total current $`J`$, the currents $`j_,(x)`$ carried by up- and down-spins can be written in terms of the space derivatives of electrochemical potentials $`\zeta _,(x)`$,

$$j_,(x)=\sigma _,\zeta _,^{}(x),$$
(2)
which are related to the non-equilibrium parts $`n_,(x)`$ of the electron concentrations and to the electrical potential $`\phi _F(x)`$ in the FM region by equations

$$\zeta _,(x)=(eD_,/\sigma _,)n_,(x)\phi _F(x),$$
(3)
and $`D_,`$ and $`\sigma _,`$ are diffusion coefficients and conductivities, respectively, of up- and down-spin electrons. These equations should be supplemented by the equation

$$n_{}(x)+n_{}(x)=0,$$
(4)
maintaining the electrical neutrality under the spin injection conditions, and the continuity and charge conservation equations

$$j_{}^{}(x)=en_{}(x)/\tau _s^F,J=j_{}(x)+j_{}(x)=\mathrm{const},$$
(5)
where $`\tau _s^F`$ is the spin relaxation time. In the “metallic” approximation, Eq. (4) is equivalent to a Poisson equation and connects transport in the both spin channels.

Let us introduce symmetric in spins variables

$$\zeta _F(x)=\zeta _{}(x)\zeta _{}(x),j_F(x)=j_{}(x)j_{}(x).$$
(6)
In these notations, the standard routine results in a diffusion equation

$$D_F\zeta _F^{\prime \prime }(x)=\zeta _F(x)/\tau _s^F,D_F=(\sigma _{}D_{}+\sigma _{}D_{})/\sigma _F,$$
(7)
where $`\sigma _F=\sigma _{}+\sigma _{}`$. The equation for $`\phi _F(x)`$,

$$\phi _F^{}(x)=[(D_{}D_{})/D_F](\sigma _{}\sigma _{}/\sigma _F^2)\zeta _F^{}(x)J/\sigma _F,$$
(8)
also follows from (2)–(5). Restricting ourselves with zero temperature, $`T=0`$, it is convenient to introduce densities of states at the Fermi level, $`\rho _,`$, and to apply Einstein relations $`e^2D_,=\sigma _,/\rho _,`$. The identities

$`e^2D_F`$ $`=`$ $`(\sigma _{}\sigma _{}/\sigma _F)(\rho _F/\rho _{}\rho _{}),`$ (9)
$`(\rho _{}\sigma _{}\rho _{}\sigma _{})`$ $`/`$ $`\rho _F\sigma _F=[(\mathrm{\Delta }\sigma /\sigma _F)(\mathrm{\Delta }\rho /\rho _F)]/2,`$ (10)
where $`\mathrm{\Delta }\sigma =\sigma _{}\sigma _{}`$, $`\mathrm{\Delta }\rho =\rho _{}\rho _{}`$, $`\rho _F=\rho _{}+\rho _{}`$, allow us to rewrite Eq. (8) as

$$\phi _F^{}(x)=[(\mathrm{\Delta }\sigma /\sigma _F)(\mathrm{\Delta }\rho /\rho _F)]\zeta _F^{}(x)/2J/\sigma _F.$$
(11)
It follows from (2) and (11) that:

$$j_F(x)=2(\sigma _{}\sigma _{}/\sigma _F)\zeta _F^{}(x)+(\mathrm{\Delta }\sigma /\sigma _F)J.$$
(12)
Eqs. (7), (11), and (12) make a complete system of bulk equations for the F region. They also determine

$$\zeta _{}(x)+\zeta _{}(x)=[2\phi _F(x)+(\mathrm{\Delta }\rho /\rho _F)\zeta _F(x)]$$
(13)
and $`n_{}(x)=(\rho _{}\rho _{}/\rho _F)\zeta _F(x)`$. Equations for the N region can be obtained from them by putting $`\sigma _{}=\sigma _{}=\sigma _N/2,\mathrm{\Delta }\rho =\mathrm{\Delta }\sigma =0`$, and $`D_N=D_{}=D_{}`$:

$`D_N\zeta _N^{\prime \prime }(x)`$ $`=\zeta _N(x)/\tau _s^N,\phi _N^{}(x)=J/\sigma _N,`$ (15)
$`j_N(x)=\sigma _N\zeta _N^{}(x)/2.`$
The boundary conditions at $`x=0`$ follow from the absence of spin relaxation at the interface. The current $`j_{}(x)`$ is continuous at $`x=0`$ and the condition $`j_F(0)=j_N(0)`$, according (12) and (15), can be rewritten as

$$\sigma _N\zeta _N^{}(0)4(\sigma _{}\sigma _{}/\sigma _F)\zeta _F^{}(0)=2(\mathrm{\Delta }\sigma /\sigma _F)J.$$
(16)
Here $`\zeta _F^{}(0)`$ and $`\zeta _N^{}(0)`$ are the values of $`\zeta ^{}(x)`$ at the left and the right sides of the interface, respectively. Low tunnel transparency of the contact supports differences in the potentials $`\zeta _,^F`$ and $`\zeta _,^N`$ at the F and N sides of it, and makes $`\zeta _,(x)`$ discontinuous at $`x=0`$.  Similar to (2), these differences are related to the currents as

$$j_,(0)=\mathrm{\Sigma }_,(\zeta _,^N\zeta _,^F),$$
(17)
or, in the symmetric variables of Eq. (6), as

$$\zeta _N(0)\zeta _F(0)=2(\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{\Sigma }/\mathrm{\Sigma })r_cJ+2r_cj(0),$$
(18)
$$(\phi _F(0)\phi _N(0))+\frac{\mathrm{\Delta }\rho }{2\rho _F}\zeta _F(0)=r_cJ\frac{\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{\Sigma }}{\mathrm{\Sigma }}r_cj(0),$$
(19)
where Eq. (13) has been taken into account. The current $`j(0)=j_F(0)=j_N(0)`$ should be found from (12) or (15). Here $`\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{\Sigma }=\mathrm{\Sigma }_{}\mathrm{\Sigma }_{}`$, $`\mathrm{\Sigma }=\mathrm{\Sigma }_{}+\mathrm{\Sigma }_{}`$, and $`r_c=\mathrm{\Sigma }/4\mathrm{\Sigma }_{}\mathrm{\Sigma }_{}`$ is the effective contact resistance.

One important conclusion follows from (19) immediately: a finite voltage drop at the interface, $`V_{\mathrm{if}}=\phi _F(0)\phi _N(0)J`$, exists even for $`r_c=0`$ because of $`\mathrm{\Delta }\rho 0`$. This fact is not surprising. Similar discontinuities exist at abrupt p-n-junctions and near current converting surfaces in the theory of the diffusion size effect. They should also contribute to the giant magnetoresistance.

Injection coefficient. Solutions of (7) and (15) for $`\zeta _{F,N}(x)`$ are exponents decaying with the diffusion lengths $`L_F=(D_F\tau _s^F)^{1/2}`$ and $`L_N=(D_N\tau _s^N)^{1/2}`$. Therefore, $`\zeta _N^{}(0)=\zeta _N(0)/L_N=2\gamma J/\sigma _N`$ and $`\zeta _F^{}(0)=\zeta _F(0)/L_F`$. Let us define the injection coefficient as $`\gamma =j(0)/J`$. Eliminating $`\zeta _F(0)`$ from (16) and (18), we get

$$\gamma =[r_F(\mathrm{\Delta }\sigma /\sigma _F)+r_c(\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{\Sigma }/\mathrm{\Sigma })]/r_{FN},$$
(20)
where $`r_{FN}=r_F+r_N+r_c`$, $`r_F=L_F\sigma _F/4\sigma _{}\sigma _{}`$, and $`r_N=L_N/\sigma _N`$. The equation for $`r_{FN}`$ shows that $`r_c`$, $`r_F`$ and $`r_N`$ are connected in series. It follows from (20) that with $`r_Fr_N`$, the injection coefficient can be large, $`\gamma 1`$, if and only if $`r_cr_N`$, in agreement with (1). This criterion is rather soft and is satisfied for narrow tunnel junctions of the atomic scale. Actually, any kind of a spin selective contact with high resistance $`r_c`$ suits this criterion. For $`r_cr_N,r_F`$, the injection coefficient $`\gamma \mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{\Sigma }/\mathrm{\Sigma }_F`$. In this regime the contact takes control over $`\gamma `$ and completely determines it.

Spin-e.m.f. The same FM-T-N-junction can be used for detecting spin accumulation $`n_{\mathrm{}}`$ homogeneously produced in the N region by some external source by measuring open circuit voltage (floating potential) on a FM electrode. This signal is some kind of photo-e.m.f. and has been successfully used by Johnson for detecting spins injected into paramagnetic metals, while absence of a similar signal from semiconductor heterostructures signifies low spin injection level. Derivations similar to the presented above result in a spin-e.m.f. signal

$$\phi _F=2\gamma (eD_N/L_N)r_Nn_{\mathrm{}},$$
(21)
where $`\gamma `$ is defined by (20), and $`n_{\mathrm{}}=n_{}(x=\mathrm{})`$. Large value of $`r_N`$, while suppressing spin injection, facilitates large magnitude of $`\phi _F`$.

Resistance of a FM-T-N-junction. The voltage drop at the interface, $`V_{\mathrm{if}}`$, permits one to define the interface resistance $`R_{\mathrm{if}}=V_{\mathrm{if}}/J`$. Finding $`\zeta _F(0)`$ from (18) and substituting it into (19), one gets after some algebra:

$`R_{\mathrm{if}}(\gamma )`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{\Sigma }^1+[r_F(\mathrm{\Delta }\rho /\rho _F)(\mathrm{\Delta }\sigma /\sigma _F)+r_c(\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{\Sigma }/\mathrm{\Sigma })^2]`$ (22)
$``$ $`\gamma [r_F(\mathrm{\Delta }\rho /\rho _F)+r_c(\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{\Sigma }/\mathrm{\Sigma })].`$ (23)
The first term in (23) is an intrinsic property of the interface and does not depend on the presence of non-equilibrium spins, while the last two terms cancel when $`L_N,L_F0`$. $`R_{\mathrm{if}}\mathrm{\Sigma }^1`$ is usually positive but under some conditions, e.g., $`\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{\Sigma }=0,\mathrm{\Delta }\sigma /\mathrm{\Delta }\rho <0`$, it is negative.

In addition to $`V_{\mathrm{if}}`$, there exists a potential drop in the regions about $`L_F`$ and $`L_N`$ around the interface which is of the same order of magnitude as $`R_{\mathrm{if}}\mathrm{\Sigma }^1`$. The total resistance of the junction $`R_\mathrm{j}`$ can be found by integrating Eqs. (8) and (15) for $`\phi _F`$ and $`\phi _N`$ and finding the integration constant from (19). Subtracting the voltage drop over the nominal resistances of the FM and N regions from the potential difference between their ends, we get

$`R_\mathrm{j}(\gamma ,r_{FN})`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{\Sigma }^1`$ (24)
$`+`$ $`[r_F(\mathrm{\Delta }\sigma /\sigma _F)^2+r_c(\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{\Sigma }/\mathrm{\Sigma })^2]\gamma ^2r_{FN}.`$ (25)
Two last terms in (25) originate from non-equilibrium spins and cancel when $`L_N,L_F0`$. The second term in (25) is positive and can be identified as Kapitza resistance originating from the conversion of spin flows. The third term is negative and explicitly related to the spin injection. Therefore, we term it injection conductivity. The sum of both non-equilibrium terms in (25) is always positive. It is interesting to note that the factor $`\mathrm{\Delta }\rho /\rho _F`$ which is present in $`R_{\mathrm{if}}`$ cancels from $`R_\mathrm{j}`$. Resistances $`R_{\mathrm{if}}`$ and $`R_\mathrm{j}`$ can be measured separately in spin-e.m.f. and spin-valve experiments. For $`r_c=0`$, Eqs. (20) and (25) are equivalent to the results by van Son et al., hence, the resistance found by them should be identified as $`R_\mathrm{j}`$.

Spin injection into a FM-T-N-T-FM-junction. General equations derived above are also applicable to a system with two interfaces, two tunnel contacts, and an N region between them. We attach indices L and R to the parameters of the left and right ferromagnets and tunnel contacts and neglect spin relaxation in N region since in this case equations simplify and the problem can be solved in terms of the parameters of a single FM-T-N-junction. Writing equations similar to (16) and (18) for each contact, taking their sums, and eliminating $`\zeta _F^R\zeta _F^L`$ ($`\zeta _F^R`$ and $`\zeta _F^L`$ being values of $`\zeta _F(x)`$ at the junction boundaries), one finds injection coefficient $`\mathrm{\Gamma }=(j_{}^Nj_{}^N)/J`$:

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }=(r_{FN}^L\gamma _L+r_{NF}^R\gamma _R)/r_{FNF},$$
(26)
where $`r_{FNF}=r_N^w+r_F^L+r_F^R+r_c^L+r_c^R`$, $`r_N^w=w/\sigma _N`$ is a nominal resistance of the N region, $`w`$ is its width, and $`\gamma _L`$ and $`\gamma _R`$ can be found from Eq. (20) for L and R interfaces. Similar to (20), injection is controlled by the larger of the resistances $`r_F^{L,R}`$ and $`r_c^{L,R}`$. To achieve a large $`\gamma `$ value it is enough to have only one tunnel contact, either the left or the right one. The second contact is only needed for detecting spin injection by the spin-valve effect. Even in a completely antisymmetric system, $`\mathrm{\Delta }\sigma _L/\sigma _L=\mathrm{\Delta }\sigma _R/\sigma _R,\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{\Sigma }_L/\mathrm{\Sigma }_L=\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{\Sigma }_R/\mathrm{\Sigma }_R,r_c^L=r_c^R`$, non-equilibrium spins are present in the N region. E.g., for $`r_c^L=r_c^R=0`$, their concentration equals $`n_{}^N(x)=(\sigma _N/2D_N)(\mathrm{\Delta }\sigma _L/\sigma _F)r_FJ`$ = const, and the result $`\mathrm{\Gamma }=0`$ following from (26) is tantamount to the absence of diffusion currents in the N-region. Non-equilibrium spins in it can be detected by spin-e.m.f.

Resistance of a FM-T-N-T-FM-junction. Similar to a FM-N-junction, $`\phi (x)`$ shows abrupt change at both interfaces and gradual change near them at the scale of $`L_F`$. Interfacial resistances $`_{\mathrm{if}}^{L,R}`$ are similar to (23):

$$_{\mathrm{if}}^{L,R}=R_{\mathrm{if}}^{L,R}(\mathrm{\Gamma },r_{FNF}),$$
(27)
i.e., they can be found from (25), however, with $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ instead of $`\gamma `$ and $`r_{FNF}`$ instead of $`r_{FM}`$. The junction resistance $`_\mathrm{j}`$ can be written in a similar way in terms of $`R_\mathrm{j}`$:

$$_\mathrm{j}=r_N^w+R_\mathrm{j}^L(\mathrm{\Gamma },r_{FNF})+R_\mathrm{j}^R(\mathrm{\Gamma },r_{FNF}),$$
(28)
i.e., it can be found from Eq. (25) by plugging into it the parameters of both contacts and changing $`\gamma \mathrm{\Gamma }`$ and $`r_{FN}r_{FNF}`$. Therefore, $`_\mathrm{j}`$ also includes the Kapitza resistance and injection conductivity. The non-equilibrium part of $`_j`$ is always positive, but the explicit equation proving this fact is somewhat lengthy.

Let us mention that Eqs. (27) and (28) for resistances, as well as Eqs. (23) and (25), include only products or squares of the differences $`\mathrm{\Delta }\sigma `$, $`\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }\rho `$, while the equations for potentials \[like Eqs. (16), (18) and (19)\] include them in the first power.

Detection of spin injection by the spin-valve effect is based on the change in $`_\mathrm{j}`$ when the magnetization direction of one of the two identical FM-electrodes is reversed ($`\mathrm{\Delta }\sigma _R\mathrm{\Delta }\sigma _R,\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{\Sigma }_R\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{\Sigma }_R`$). It comes exclusively from the injection conductivity, $`\mathrm{\Delta }_\mathrm{j}=r_{FNF}(\mathrm{\Gamma }_{}^2\mathrm{\Gamma }_{}^2)`$, and equals:

$$\mathrm{\Delta }_\mathrm{j}=\gamma _L\gamma _R(4r_{FN}^Lr_{NF}^R/r_{FNF}).$$
(29)
The resistance $`_\mathrm{j}`$, Eq. (28), remains finite for a completely antisymmetric system even for $`|\mathrm{\Delta }\sigma |\sigma _F`$. In the absence of spin relaxation in the N region and at both contacts, no conductivity through a junction could be expected at the first glance. However, it exists and its mechanism is as follows. Because $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{}=0`$, the currents $`j_{}^N`$ and $`j_{}^N`$ in the N region are driven only by the electric field and are equal exactly, $`j_{}^N=j_{}^N=J/2`$. In the FM regions, the currents of the minority spins are driven mostly by diffusion. Therefore, the concentrations of non-equilibrium spins near the interfaces equal $`n(L_F/2eD_F)J`$, and the only restriction on the diffusion current comes from the condition that the total concentration of minority carriers is positive, i.e., $`n_{\mathrm{min}}^0\pm n>0`$, where $`n_{\mathrm{min}}^0`$ is the equilibrium concentration of minority carriers. Hence, the Ohmic conductivity of a FM-T-N-T-FM-junction remains finite even when $`|\mathrm{\Delta }\sigma |/\sigma _F0`$, but the Ohmic region becomes narrower and disappears completely for $`|\mathrm{\Delta }\sigma |=\sigma _F`$. Non-linear conductivity is outside the scope of this paper.

For $`r_c^L=r_c^R=0`$, Eq. (26) for $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ is equivalent to the result by Schmidt et al. However, Eqs. (28) and (29) differ from the equations for Ohmic resistance of Refs.  and . Because the derivation procedure has not been specified there, the origin of the discrepancy is unclear.

Discussion. The above theory suggests that tunnel contacts obeying criterion (1) should provide a tremendous increase in spin polarization of the currents injected electrically from a FM metal into a semiconductor. Our conclusion is based on the assumption that spin conductivity ratio $`\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{\Sigma }/\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ is large for tunnel contacts. In fact, Alvorado has shown that spin polarization is large for narrow barriers and can reach about 50%. Different types of tunnel contacts have been successfully used, e.g., STM tips in vacuum and in air, Schottky barriers, and resonant double barriers. Therefore, inclusion of appropriate barriers into a circuit should be a soluble problem. One should also bear in mind, that it is not the ballistic transport, but the ability of tunnel contacts to support a considerable difference in electrochemical potentials under the conditions of slow spin relaxation, which is important for efficient spin injection. Therefore, different contacts combining small spin diffusivity with low spin relaxation rate should possess similar properties.

In conclusion, we (i) have shown that tunnel contacts can solve the problem of the electrical spin injection from a ferromagnetic metal into a semiconductor, and (ii) have derived explicit expressions for the spin injection coefficient, spin-valve effect, and spin-e.m.f.

I am grateful to Dr. Alexander Efros for useful discussions.


format: text

text:
# The Effects of Noise and Sampling on the Spectral Correlation Function

## 1 Introduction

Rosolowsky et al. (1999) (RGWW) have recently introduced a new method to analyze large maps of molecular spectral lines. They propose to use the “Spectral Correlation Function” (SCF) as a way to test theoretical models against observational data. The SCF at a given position in a map is defined as the quadratic sum of the difference between the spectral line profile at that position and the profile at neighboring positions:

$$S_0(T_1,T_0)=1\sqrt{\frac{\mathrm{\Sigma }_v(T_1(v)T_0(v))^2}{\mathrm{\Sigma }_vT_1(v)^2+\mathrm{\Sigma }_vT_0(v)^2}}$$
(1)
where $`T_i(v)`$ is the antenna temperature at the velocity channel $`v`$ at the position $`i=0,1`$ in the map. The definition of the SCF in RGWW is more general than this, since it allows for translation along the velocity axes and rescaling of antenna temperature that minimize the difference between neighboring spectra. In the present work we only discuss the SCF as defined in equation (1), corresponding to “$`S^0`$” in RGWW.

The SCF is similar in spirit to some of the analysis tools used to extract clumps from 3-D spectral line data cubes (Stutzki & Gusten 1990; Williams, De Geus & Blitz 1994), in that it makes direct use (no transform involved) of both spatial and velocity information. However, the SCF is different from these methods, because it makes no attempt to extract the properties of clumps from data cubes; it simply compares neighboring spectra with each other, utilizing both the spatial and velocity dimensions.

Some previous statistical analyses do not explicitly use the velocity dimension in analyzing spectral line cubes (for example the wavelet analysis by Gill & Henriksen 1990 and Langer, Wilson, & Anderson 1993; the structure-tree statistics by Houlahan & Scalo 1992; the column density distribution by Blitz & Williams 1997; the $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$–variance method by Stutzki et al. 1998 and Mac Low & Ossenkopf 1999; the fractal analysis by Beech 1987, Bazell & Désert 1988, Scalo 1990, Dickman, Horvath & Margulis 1990, Falgarone, Phillips & Walker 1991, Zimmermann, Stutzki & Winnewisser 1992, Henriksen 1991, Hetem & Lepine 1993, Vogelaar & Wakker 1994, Elmegreen & Falgarone 1996).

Other statistical analysis make use of the velocity dimension, but only to estimate the centroid velocity of the spectra, and compute the structure (or autocorrelation) function of velocity fluctuations (Scalo 1984; Kleiner & Dickman 1985, 1987; Hobson 1992; Miesch & Bally 1994), or the distribution of line centroids (Miesch & Scalo 1995; Lis et al. 1996; Miesch, Scalo & Bally 1999). The moment analysis computes statistical moments (velocity centroids, line width, skewness and kurtosis) of single spectra in a map, and derive their distribution over the whole map (Falgarone et al. 1994; Padoan et al. 1999), independent of their position in a map.

A method that exploits both velocity and spatial information is the Principal Components Analysis by Heyer & Schloerb (1997). This method describes clouds as a sum of orthogonal functions in a manner mathematically similar to wavelet analysis, and is the most promising way to extract the power spectrum of molecular cloud turbulence from observational data.

Therefore, prior to the SCF, no statistical analysis had tackled the problem of quantifying spatial correlations in spectral maps, taking into account also the velocity information, with the exception of the Principal Component Analysis. The SCF quantifies the correlation between spectra at a given distance from each other (spatial lag), using the full velocity profile information, because the comparison between spectra is made channel to channel.

RGWW concluded that the SCF can find differences between observational data and synthetic spectra from numerical simulations of turbulent flows that are not found by other statistical analyses of line profiles (e.g. the moment analysis by Falgarone et al. 1994). That preliminary result motivates the present work, where we try to study in more detail the effect of noise and sampling on the SCF, and to improve on the first implementation of the method. The main issue is that the value of the SCF as defined in RGWW depends on the signal to noise ($`S/N`$), as illustrated in Figure 1 of both that paper and Figure 1 of this paper. A simple way to eliminate this signal-to-noise dependence, proposed in RGWW, is to make the $`S/N`$ uniform over the map, by adding noise. In RGWW, spectra with $`S/N<5`$ were discarded, and noise was added to higher quality spectra to force $`S/N=5`$. In the present work, instead, we have analytically estimated the main effect of noise on the SCF, using a novel definition of the $`S/N`$. We can therefore compute a noise–corrected SCF that is hardly dependent on the $`S/N`$, without adding any extra noise to the data.

In the new-and-improved implementation of the SCF offered in this paper, when observational data are compared with synthetic maps, noise must be added to the synthetic data, under the assumption that it is uniform over the observed map. If noise is not uniform over the observed map, or if it is correlated over a few map positions, extra noise must be added to the observational spectra until the noise is both spatially uniform and uncorrelated. However, we do not need to adjust the $`S/N`$ to be uniform as in RGWW.

In the following two sections, the effect of noise on the SCF is discussed, and an analytic model is computed that allows the values of the SCF to be corrected for the effect of noise. In §4 we study the effects of both velocity sampling and spatial lags between spectra. We show that a correlation inner scale, $`l_i`$, can be defined. On scales smaller than $`l_i`$ the spectral map is not self-similar. Results are tested in §5, by computing the SCF using two maps of the Rosette Molecular Cloud with different resolution. A discussion is presented in §6, and in §7 we summarize our conclusions.

## 2 Effect of Noise

In RGWW the signal–to–noise of a spectrum is defined in a conventional way, computing the signal as the maximum antenna temperature of a Gaussian fit to each line profile, while in the present work we define the signal–to–noise in a different way. We characterize the signal–to–noise by spectrum quality, $`Q`$, computed as the rms of the antenna temperature for all channels inside a velocity window, divided by the rms noise over the whole map. This definition will prove very useful in the analytic computation presented in §3, where its relation with the usual definition of signal–to –noise is discussed further.

The value of $`T_i(v)`$ in eq. (1) is the sum of signal and noise, and therefore two intrinsically identical spectra can have significant channel to channel differences due to the noise alone. The noise has a stronger effect for spectra with low $`S/N`$ than for spectra with high $`S/N`$, which is why the SCF increases gradually with the $`S/N`$, as illustrated in Figure 1 of RGWW. The top panel of Figure 1 of the present paper, which shows $`S_0`$ as a function of spectrum quality $`Q`$, is very similar to the left panel of RGWW Figure 1. The only difference is in how spectrum quality is defined: $`S/N`$ in RGWW and $`Q`$ here.

In Figure 1 the SCF is plotted versus $`Q`$, for the C18O (1-0) spectra in a map of Heiles Cloud 2 (deVries et al. 2000). The upper panel shows the SCF versus $`Q`$ for data in their original (real) positions, and the lower panel for a “randomized” map created by randomizing the positions of the spectra. These randomized maps proved useful comparison tools in RGWW. Statistics which only consider distributions of line parameters (such as moment analyses, Falgarone et al. 1994; Padoan et al. 1998) would find the original and randomized maps to be identical, while the SCF can, and always does, find them different.

A map of “synthetic spectra” can be made as a collection of Gaussian profiles with a linear gradient in their amplitude along one spatial direction. The resulting map is very smooth. The SCF of such an artificial map is very close to 1 ($`0.99`$) everywhere on the map, assuming the gradient is small enough. Then noise can be added to the spectra, and suddenly the SCF changes dramatically: it decreases towards zero for very low $`Q`$, and its values are scattered around an average value for any given $`Q`$. This is qualitatively very similar to the dependence of the SCF on $`Q`$ computed for observational data. Does this mean that the SCF versus $`S/N`$ is only telling us about instrumental noise, and not about the physics of molecular clouds? The answer is no, and this is illustrated in Figure 2.

The solid line in the left panel of Figure 2 shows the SCF versus the rms antenna temperature (there is no noise in the artificial spectra) for each spectrum in the smooth map of Gaussian spectra (see Figure 2 captions for details). The scatter plot in the same panel shows instead the SCF versus the rms antenna temperature (still no noise added) for each spectrum of a more realistic map of 13CO (J=1–0) synthetic spectra that are computed using the results of MHD simulations of super–sonic turbulence666These synthetic spectra are calculated from data cubes obtained as results of super–sonic MHD simulations with sonic rms Mach number equal to 10.6, and assuming an average gas density equal to $`540`$ cm-3, and a physical size of the simulated box of 3.7 pc, without including self–gravity, stellar radiation, or stellar outflows. The original numerical mesh is 1283 in size, while the maps contain 90$`\times `$90 spectra (the numerical mesh has been rebinned to 903 for the computation of the radiative transfer). Details of the computation of synthetic spectra using simulations of MHD turbulence can be found in Padoan & Nordlund 1999; Padoan et al. 1999. (Padoan et al. 1998). The synthetic spectra from MHD simulations are far from being perfectly smooth Gaussians. They have features created by the combination of the projected density field and the radial velocity distribution along the line of sight, such as non Gaussian spectral wings and multiple components. Neighboring spectra in the MHD simulations can differ because their shapes are different, their integrated temperatures are different, or their centroid velocities are shifted. These are the reasons why the SCF versus antenna temperature in the realistic synthetic spectra has a large scatter and a smaller average value than the SCF of the Gaussian spectra that is equal to 0.99 everywhere on the map. The difference between the two cases can still be appreciated after the noise is added to the spectra (right and central panels of Figure 2). So, although the noise is responsible for the gross “rising” dependence of the SCF on $`Q`$, the actual distribution of the SCF at a given $`Q`$ depends also on the type of structures present in the spectral map, and thus on the physics that generates spectra with those particular structures.

## 3 How to Correct for the Effect of Noise

In order to quantitatively study the intrinsic differences between distributions of the SCF for different observational spectral maps, it is useful to define a new SCF, corrected for the effect of noise. One way to achieve this is to provide a simple analytic model of the effect of noise.

First consider the definition of the SCF (eq. 1).

$`S_0(T_1,T_0)`$ $`=`$ $`1\sqrt{{\displaystyle \frac{_v(T_1T_0)^2}{_vT_1^2+_vT_0^2}}}`$ (2)
$`=`$ $`1\sqrt{1{\displaystyle \frac{2_vT_1T_0}{_vT_1^2+_vT_0^2}}}`$ (3)
In order to simplify the expression further, a given spectrum, $`T_i(v)`$, can be theoretically separated into a signal component ($`s`$) and a noise component ($`\mu `$): $`T_i(v)=s_i(v)+\mu _i(v)`$.777$`v`$ is a discrete variable; we write it as an argument to be consistent with common notation in the literature. The subscript $`i`$ refers to the position of the spectrum in the map. For purposes of this derivation, we assume the noise function to have a mean value of zero and an rms value (over the whole map) equal to $`N`$. (Throughout this paper, the letter “$`N`$” is used to mean rms “noise”: it has nothing to do with a number of channels or samples.) In addition, we assume that the noise in any spectrum is uncorrelated with the noise in another spectrum. Using our assumptions about the noise, we can set $`_vs_i\mu _i=0`$ for any $`s_i`$ that varies slowly in velocity space because the mean value of $`\mu _i`$ over any interval is zero. Using the definition of $`N`$ as rms baseline noise, we see that $`_v\mu _i^2dv=WN^2`$, where $`W`$ is the velocity range over which the SCF is evaluated, and $`dv`$ the width of the velocity channels. (The same value of $`W`$ is used for all spectra). Finally, we can approximate $`_v\mu _i\mu _j=0`$ because the two noise functions are uncorrelated and hence their product will be normally distributed around zero.

With all of these simplifications, the definition of the SCF can be reduced to the following:

$`S_0(T_1,T_0)`$ $`=`$ $`1\sqrt{1{\displaystyle \frac{2(_vs_1s_0+_vs_1\mu _0+_vs_0\mu _1+_v\mu _1\mu _0)}{_vT_1^2+_vT_0^2}}}`$ (4)
$``$ $`1\sqrt{1{\displaystyle \frac{2_vs_1s_0}{_vT_1^2+_vT_0^2}}}`$ (5)
In this paper, we have chosen to modify the definition of signal-to-noise (see §2). We refer to the new $`S/N`$ as “spectrum quality”, $`Q`$:

$$Q_i=\frac{1}{N}\sqrt{\frac{_vT_i(v)^2dv}{W}}\underset{v}{}T_i(v)^2dv=WN^2Q_i^2$$
(6)
The spectrum quality, $`Q`$, is compared with the traditional $`S/N`$ based on Gaussian fits to the spectra (eg RGWW) in Figure 4, using the spectra from the map of Heiles Cloud 2. Figure 4 shows that $`Q`$ depends on the choice of the velocity window, decreasing as $`W`$ increases, and it is in general smaller than the usual definition of $`S/N`$. In this work, we use $`W=10\sigma `$, where $`\sigma `$ is the standard deviation in velocity of a spectrum created by averaging over the whole map ($`W6\sigma `$ was used in RGWW).

We can expand $`_vT_i(v)^2`$ and use our assumptions about the noise to simplify our results.

$$\underset{v}{}T_i(v)^2=\underset{v}{}\left[s_i(v)+\mu _i(v)\right]^2=\underset{v}{}s_i^2+\underset{v}{}2s_i\mu _i+\underset{v}{}\mu _i^2=\underset{v}{}s_i^2+WN^2/dv$$
(7)
Combining the results from equations 6 and 7 yields the following:

$$\underset{v}{}s_i^2=\frac{WN^2}{dv}\left[Q_i^21\right]$$
(8)
In order to normalize the SCF, we want to quantify the effect of noise alone, and not the effect of intrinsic variations between different spectra. We therefore consider the case of neighboring spectra that are identical in their signal (they differ only for the noise component), $`_vs_1s_0=_vs_1^2=_vs_0^2`$. In that case, the SCF is:

$`S_{0,max}(Q)`$ $`=`$ $`1\sqrt{1{\displaystyle \frac{2WN^2\left[Q^21\right]}{2WN^2Q^2}}}`$ (9)
$`=`$ $`1{\displaystyle \frac{1}{Q}}`$ (10)
Notice that we only use the rms value of the noise averaged over the whole map, $`N`$, and not the specific noise level at the position of each spectrum. Observational data usually contain non–uniform noise, that is the noise level of two different spectra can be slightly different. However, spatial fluctuations of noise on spectral maps of good quality are usually small (about 10% in the case of the Heiles Cloud 2 used in this work), and the effect on the SCF method are very small (we have verified this in a number of experiments, by normalizing the SCF with the value of the local noise at each spectrum position, and by adding spatially non–uniform noise to maps of synthetic spectra). We therefore use only the global rms noise value $`N`$, which allows the derivation of the analytic expression (10). The function in eq. (10) should maximize the SCF, because its derivation assumes that neighboring spectra are identical, in the absence of noise. In fact, the dependence of the SCF on $`Q`$ is perfectly fit by this simple function, for the smooth Gaussian model (see Figure 3). Given the assumption of identical neighboring spectra, all observational data cubes and realistic models are expected to yield values of the SCF that are not larger than the one given by the simple function here derived. However, the sums involving the noise (the $`\mu `$ terms) that have been eliminated because they are approximately zero for uncorrelated noise, can have both positive and negative deviations from zero, not taken into account in the present derivation. Such random deviations explain the scatter in the plot of Figure 4, and they are the reason why the SCF of observational data can be even larger than its value predicted analytically, for very low values of $`Q`$ (left panels of Figure 5).

Since the simple function in equation (10) explains most of the effect of noise on the SCF, it can be used as a reference, and a “noise-corrected” SCF can be expressed in terms of deviations from that reference function. In practice we divide the value of the “raw” SCF at any given $`Q`$, by its expected value according to equation (10) to derive the normalized SCF. Normalized SCF distributions are shown in Figure 5 for the MHD model and for Heiles Cloud 2. The Heiles Cloud 2 map has been decreased in resolution by a factor of two, to eliminate spatial correlation of noise, as discussed in §6, and uniformly distributed Gaussian noise has been added to the spectra, with an rms value equal to the rms noise of the original data, to completely eliminate any possible residual correlation in the noise. As a result, the values of $`Q`$ span a range from 1 to about 6. Spatially uniform Gaussian noise has been added also to the numerical MHD and Gaussian models shown in Figure 5, in order to obtain a range of values of $`Q`$ for the synthetic spectra between 1 and 6, as in the observational ones.

In the rest of this paper, average values of the SCF are computed using only spectra with $`Q>2`$, since for smaller values of $`Q`$ the SCF is dominated by noise. Figure 6 shows that the value of the normalized SCF, averaged over the whole map, is roughly independent of $`Q`$ (at least for $`Q>2`$), and therefore the normalization based on the analytic formula (10) is able to eliminate the gross dependence of the SCF on the noise. The plot is computed using a map of 90x90 synthetic 13CO spectra, from Padoan et al. (1999). The value of $`Q`$ is varied by adding different levels of noise to the synthetic spectra.

## 4 Effect of Sampling

### 4.1 Velocity Window

In RGWW the signal–to–noise ($`S/N`$) is defined by computing the signal as the maximum antenna temperature of a Gaussian fit to each spectrum, and the SCF is computed using only velocity channels within 3 FWHMs of the velocity centroid, where both the velocity centroid and the FWHM are results of a Gaussian fit to each spectrum. In the present work no Gaussian fits are used, and the signal–to–noise is characterized by spectrum quality, $`Q`$, defined in eq. (6). $`Q_i`$ has been computed as the rms of antenna temperature for all channels inside a velocity window, $`W`$, at the map position $`i`$, divided by the rms noise over the whole map, $`N`$.

Our definition of $`Q`$ takes into account the fact that all velocity channels inside the velocity window are used in the comparison of two neighboring spectra, and so the spectrum “quality” depends in part on the width of the velocity window. The velocity window used in the computation of the SCF has the same width, $`W`$, for all spectra in the map, and it is centered around the velocity centroid of each map position. As a result, one advantage of using $`Q`$ instead of the usual $`S/N`$, is that the SCF becomes independent of the choice of the value of $`W`$ (except in the case of the randomized maps). Moreover, this definition of $`Q`$ allows the analytic computation of the effect of noise on the SCF, as shown in the previous section. The dependence of the SCF versus $`S/N`$ on $`W`$ is due to the fact that a larger velocity window introduces more velocity channels that are dominated by noise than a smaller velocity window, and therefore decreases the value of the SCF. This does not occur when $`Q`$ is used instead of the usual $`S/N`$, because the value of $`Q`$ decreases as $`W`$ increases.

In Figure 7 the average value of the normalized SCF for the Heiles Cloud 2 C18O map is plotted versus the value of $`W`$. Spectra with $`Q<2`$ are not used because their SCF is too strongly affected by the noise. The SCF averaged over the whole map, is not affected by the value of $`W`$. (“Error bars” in Figure 7 show the 1–$`\sigma `$ dispersion in the SCF for each value of $`W`$). On the other hand, the SCF of the spectra with randomized positions decreases with increasing $`W`$. This is mainly due to the fact that, once the position of the spectra are randomized, neighboring spectra can have values of $`Q`$ very different from the one of the reference spectrum. We have verified that if $`Q`$ is defined as the average of the quality of all spectra used to compute the SCF at any position in a map, than the SCF is roughly independent of $`W`$ also for the case of spectra with randomized positions.

Although the SCF varies extremely little in the range $`1<W/\sigma <30`$, it is better to use the same value of $`W/\sigma `$ when comparing observational data with theoretical models, if the values of the SCF for the randomized spectra are to be compared. Note that in RGWW’s analysis of the Heiles Cloud 2 map, the value of $`W`$ is essentially constant, because variations in the FWHM of different spectra are rather small.

### 4.2 Spatial Lags

In the previous sections we have shown that the value of the normalized SCF does not depend strongly on the average signal–to–noise (or spectrum quality) of the data or on the width of the velocity window used to compare the spectra. We have used values of the SCF averaged over the whole spectral map, and only adjacent spectra have been compared. The physical separation between adjacent spectra (or pixels in a map) depends on the distance to the observed cloud, on the size of the telescope beam, and on the way the cloud has been sampled in the observations. A different physical separation between spectra yields different values of the SCF. In this section, we compute the SCF using different values of the distance between spectra in a map, that we call the “lag”, or $`\mathrm{\Delta }r`$ ($`\mathrm{\Delta }r=1`$, in pixel units, in the previous sections), and we explore how the SCF depends on lag. The value of the SCF at a position $`𝐫`$ in a map and lag $`\mathrm{\Delta }r`$ is given by the expression:

$$S_0(𝐫,\mathrm{\Delta }r)=1\sqrt{\frac{\mathrm{\Sigma }_v[T(𝐫,v)T(𝐫+𝚫𝐫,v)]^2}{\mathrm{\Sigma }_vT(𝐫,v)^2+\mathrm{\Sigma }_vT(𝐫+𝚫𝐫,v)^2}}_{𝚫𝐫}$$
(11)
where the average is done for all vectors $`𝚫𝐫`$ of length $`\mathrm{\Delta }r`$. The value of the SCF for lag $`\mathrm{\Delta }r`$, averaged over the map is:

$$S_0(\mathrm{\Delta }r)=S_0(𝐫,\mathrm{\Delta }r)_𝐫$$
(12)
Figure 8 shows the SCF versus $`\mathrm{\Delta }r`$ for the spectral map of the Heiles Cloud 2, the MHD model, and the smooth Gaussian model. The Gaussian model has no spatial structure, apart from a smooth one–dimensional intensity gradient, and therefore yields values of the SCF that are hardly dependent on $`\mathrm{\Delta }r`$. The lag dependence is instead stronger in the real data and in the MHD model, since both contain strong spatial and velocity structures. For both the C18O data and the MHD model, $`S_0(\mathrm{\Delta }r)`$ can be well approximated by a power law inside the range of scales $`\mathrm{}_i<\mathrm{}<\mathrm{}_o`$, where we call $`\mathrm{}_i`$ the correlation inner scale, and $`\mathrm{}_o`$ the correlation outer scale. The C18O map of the Heiles Cloud 2 has a SCF–lag power law slope of $`\alpha 0.17`$, and flattens at $`\mathrm{}_o11`$, in pixel units, that corresponds to $`\mathrm{}_o0.4`$ pc. The slope and the correlation scale for the MHD model are similar, but should not be compared directly to the values found for the Heiles Cloud 2, since they are computed for a different molecular transition, 13CO. The MHD model is here plotted as an illustration, and detailed comparisons between models and observations will be included in our next paper.

$`S_0(\mathrm{\Delta }r)`$ depends on the particular molecular transition used to map a cloud. At fixed angular resolution, molecular transitions which probe preferentially regions of high gas density generate maps with “sharper” structures, and larger values of the spectral slope $`\alpha `$, than transitions which probe low gas density. In Figure 9, maps of synthetic 12CO, 13CO, and CS spectra, from Padoan et al. (1999), have been used to compute $`S_0(\mathrm{\Delta }r)`$. The same three dimensional cloud model, obtained as the result of numerical simulations of super–sonic MHD turbulence (Padoan et al. 1998), has been used in all three cases. Figure 9 shows that synthetic spectra computed for a particular molecular transitions should be compared only with observational spectra of the same molecular transition, or a very close substitute.

We have seen in §6 (Figure 3) that the value of the SCF for $`\mathrm{\Delta }r=1`$ is roughly independent on the value of the spectrum quality averaged over the whole map, $`Q`$. The same is true also for the spectral slope $`\alpha `$. In Figure 10 we have plotted $`S_0(\mathrm{\Delta }r)`$ for the synthetic map with different levels of noise. Noise is added to the synthetic spectra, in order to obtain different values of the average spectrum quality: $`Q=1.5,\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}3.0},\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}6.0},\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}12.0}`$. The value of $`\alpha `$ is almost constant. It tends to slightly decrease with decreasing $`Q`$, but it grows again for $`Q<3.0`$. The values of $`S_0(\mathrm{\Delta }r)`$ increase with decreasing $`Q`$, but they tend to stabilize around $`Q=3.0`$. Typical values of the average spectrum quality in observational data are around $`Q=3.0`$, and we find that both $`S_0(\mathrm{\Delta }r)`$ and $`\alpha `$ are typically not effected very much by variations of $`Q`$.

In synthetic maps of $`90\times 90`$ spectra, or in observational maps with a comparable number of spectra, the power law shape of $`S_0(\mathrm{\Delta }r)`$ spans about an order of magnitude in scale, and it would probably extend to a scale much larger than $`\mathrm{}_o`$, if the spectral map covered a larger region. In all maps analyzed so far, we have found that $`\mathrm{}_o`$ is related to the size of the map, and therefore it is not a true estimate of the largest self–similar scale. The correlation inner scale, $`\mathrm{}_i`$, instead, must be an intrinsic smallest self–similar scale, for a particular tracer, rather than an artifact of the spatial resolution or of the size of the map. The effect of finite resolution can only be that of increasing the value of the SCF for any given $`\mathrm{\Delta }r`$, relative to an ideal case of infinite resolution. The flattening of $`S_0(\mathrm{\Delta }r)`$ for small $`\mathrm{\Delta }r`$ is also consistent with the condition $`S_0(\mathrm{\Delta }r)<1`$, which forces $`S_0(\mathrm{\Delta }r)1`$ on small scale. In the case of the Heiles Cloud 2 C18O map, the smallest self–similar scale is $`\mathrm{}_i0.06`$ pc. This interpretation of $`\mathrm{}_i`$ and $`\mathrm{}_o`$ is further confirmed in §5.

Since $`S_0(\mathrm{\Delta }r)`$ can be fitted by a power law, with the exponent roughly independent of $`\mathrm{\Delta }r`$ for a range of scales, $`\mathrm{}_i<\mathrm{}<\mathrm{}_o`$, the correlation properties of a spectral map can be quantified by the SCF slope $`\alpha `$, independent of the spatial resolution of the map (or telescope beam), or the exact distance to the observed cloud. Although the pixel size should be taken into account when comparing data and theoretical models, or different clouds, the uncertainty in the distance to the observed cloud should have almost no effect on the determination of the spectral slope $`\alpha `$.

### 4.3 Spatial and Velocity Resolution

In order to verify that the spectral slope $`\alpha `$ does not vary significantly with the spatial resolution of a map, we have computed $`S_0(\mathrm{\Delta }r)`$ for the Heiles Cloud 2 map and the synthetic map first at full resolution, and then at a resolution three times worse than the original one, by rebinning the maps into a smaller number of spectra (for example if the map size is reduced by a factor of three, each spectrum of the smaller map is computed as the average of all the 3x3 spectra around its position in the original map). $`S_0(\mathrm{\Delta }r)`$ for the original maps is represented with square symbols in Figure 11, while $`S_0(\mathrm{\Delta }r)`$ for the smaller rebinned map is represented with asterisks. A variation of a factor three in resolution has no effect on the spectral slope of the Heiles Cloud 2 map, $`\alpha =0.16`$ (left panel), while the effect is very small for the synthetic map, from $`\alpha =0.20`$ at high resolution, to $`\alpha =0.21`$ at small resolution. Moreover, once $`S_0(\mathrm{\Delta }r)`$ is rescaled into physical units of length, its actual value at any given length is unchanged, when the spatial resolution is changed by a factor of three, in the case of the Heiles Cloud 2 map, and varies only by 1-2%, in the case of the synthetic map.

We have also computed $`S_0(\mathrm{\Delta }r)`$ in both maps for different velocity resolutions, by rebinning the original data cubes into a smaller number of velocity channels. We find insignificant variations of $`S_0(\mathrm{\Delta }r)`$, when the number of velocity channels is varied by a factor of 10. Results of this computation are not presented in a figure, since the values of $`S_0(\mathrm{\Delta }r)`$ for velocity resolutions differing by a factor of 10 basically overlap on the plots. This could be due to the fact that for a specific tracer, mapped with a finite spatial resolution, and finite signal-to-noise, there may be a limit to the ”resolvable” velocity structure in a map, due essentially to spatial blending of what would otherwise be distinct velocity components. We conclude that the spectral slope $`\alpha `$ is almost independent of spatial and velocity resolution, and that the same is true for the actual values of $`S_0(\mathrm{\Delta }r)`$, if rescaled to physical units of length.

## 5 The Rosette Molecular Cloud: a Test of the SCF

In the previous section we have shown that i) $`S_0(\mathrm{\Delta }r)`$ is well approximated by a power law in the range of scales $`\mathrm{}_i<\mathrm{}<\mathrm{}_o`$; ii) the correlation outer scale $`\mathrm{}_o`$ is determined by the size of the map; iii) the correlation inner scale $`\mathrm{}_i`$ is a true estimate of the smallest self-similar scale on the map; iv) the spectral slope $`\alpha `$ is almost independent of spatial resolution, velocity resolution, and average spectrum quality $`Q`$. In the present section we test these results, using two 13CO (J=1-0) maps of the Rosette Molecular Clouds, obtained by Blitz & Stark (1986), and by Heyer et al. (2000).

The Rosette map by Heyer et al. covers a region that is approximately the same as the one covered by the Blitz & Stark map in galactic longitude, and about 4 times smaller in galactic latitude. The spatial and velocity resolutions in the map by Heyer et al. are higher than in the map by Blitz & Stark: 0.23 pc and 0.06 km/s versus 0.7 pc and 0.68 km/s respectively (assuming a distance to the Rosette Molecular Cloud of 1600 pc). The average spectrum quality of the Heyer et al. map is $`Q=2.83`$, and $`Q=2.89`$ for the portion of the Blitz & Stark map, that corresponds to the region mapped by Heiles et al. The considerably different spatial and velocity resolutions of the two maps make them suitable for testing the SCF; moreover, the very similar average spectrum quality guarantees that noise does not effect the comparison of the two maps at all.

In Figure 12, $`S_0(\mathrm{\Delta }r)`$ is plotted for both maps. The unit of length in the left panel is the pixel size of the map, while in the right panel it is the physical length in parsecs, assuming a distance of 1600 pc. We have also plotted $`S_0(\mathrm{\Delta }r)`$ computed on a portion of the Blitz & Stark map, that corresponds exactly to the area mapped by Heyer et al. (triangle symbols). The two maps yield practically indistinguishable values of $`S_0(\mathrm{\Delta }r)`$, when limited to the same region, which demonstrates that the $`S_0(\mathrm{\Delta }r)`$ is a robust statistic, roughly independent of the spatial or velocity resolution of the map. The power law shape of $`S_0(\mathrm{\Delta }r)`$ extends to a larger physical scale, $`\mathrm{}_o`$, when the full size of the Blitz & Stark map is used, increasing $`\mathrm{}_o`$ from $`2.5`$ pc to $`10.0`$ pc. This is consistent with the correlation outer scale $`\mathrm{}_o`$ being determined by the size of the map, since the Blitz & Stark map is about 4 times more extended in Galactic latitude than the Heyer et al. map. Finally, the correlation inner scale can be estimated in the Heyer et al. map, $`\mathrm{}_i0.4`$ pc, while only an upper limit can be obtained from the Blitz & Stark map, $`\mathrm{}_i<0.7`$ pc, where the power law shape of $`S_0(\mathrm{\Delta }r)`$ extends down to the smallest scale. We propose that the correlation inner scale, when it is apparent, is a real estimate of the smallest self–similar scale in a map, and not an artifact of resolution.

Figure 12 shows a significantly different spectral slope between the Blitz & Stark full and partial maps. The value of $`\alpha `$ can in fact vary in different regions of a molecular cloud, and should depend on various physical factors that will be discussed in detail in our next paper.

## 6 Discussion

Different statistical analyses of spectral maps, listed in §1, have been used in previous works, to describe quantitatively i) the hierarchical or fractal structure of molecular clouds, and ii) their random velocity field. In the first case, when the spatial structure is studied, the velocity information is usually lost (for example by using maps of integrated intensity); in the second case, when the random velocity field is considered, information on spatial intensity structures is lost (for example by using only the velocity centroids, or the spectral shape independent of the position on the map). However, the dynamics of molecular clouds certainly generate specific correlation properties in both the velocity and density field at the same time and in a self–consistent way. Spectral–line maps of molecular clouds can provide information on these properties. The SCF method can offer new insight, because it simultaneously computes the correlation of intensity and velocity structure in spectral maps. The relation between the SCF method and other statistical methods (such as wavelets and $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$–variance) is important to understand, and is the subject of our next project.

The SCF will be useful in the comparison of theoretical models with observational data. It has already been shown in RGWW, that theoretical models capable of generating synthetic spectra with shape (measured by their skewness and kurtosis) similar to the shape of observed spectral line profiles, can yield values of the SCF that are very different from their observational counterparts. This is due to the fact that theoretical synthetic spectra with realistic shape can be computed using models of the density and velocity fields that are not an appropriate description of the physical conditions in molecular clouds, and therefore do not spatially correlate like the observational spectra.

There are a number of subtleties that must be taken into account when the value of the SCF of synthetic spectra is computed: i) For ideal comparisons, noise should be added to the theoretical spectral–line profiles, to match the average spectrum quality ,$`Q`$, in the observational data; ii) the spatial and spectral resolutions in the models and in the observational counterpart should be roughly similar, and, most importantly, iii) synthetic spectra must be computed for the same molecular transition that is observed.

If the instrumental noise is not uniform over any spectral map, uniform noise should be added to the spectra until the noise is made approximately uniform888We suggest here rough equalization of the noise in all map pixels, not of the $`S/N`$ as in RGWW.. For the most valid comparison of observed and synthetic spectra, noise should be added as needed to the synthetic spectra, to make the value of $`Q`$, equal to its value in the observational map. The dispersion around the mean values of the SCF are in part due to intrinsic spectral features, and in part to the noise. However, we have verified, by comparing with smooth Gaussian models, that the dominant source of the dispersion is intrinsic spectral features. The contribution of noise to the dispersion is small, as can be seen in Figure 6, since the 1–$`\sigma `$ “error bars” are almost independent of $`Q`$. In addition, Figure 6 shows that the mean value of the normalized SCF at $`\mathrm{\Delta }r=1`$ is only weakly dependent on $`Q`$. We have also shown that the slope of $`S_0(\mathrm{\Delta }r)`$, $`\alpha `$, is almost independent of $`Q`$ (§4.2).

The SCF is a statistical tool that reflects the type of structures present in spectral maps, and it is sensitive to the size of the structures relative to the size (or number) of the pixels in the maps. The same region of a molecular cloud, observed with higher resolution, can yield a higher value of the SCF, because the neighboring spectra are closer to each other, in physical units. In order to correctly compare theoretical models and observations directly, the models must be computed with a physical size or resolution that match the observations. However, we have verified, in §4.3 and 5, that the spectral slope $`\alpha `$ is almost independent of resolution. The correct rescaling of models and observations to physical units of length is therefore important only for a correct estimation of the correlation scales $`\mathrm{}_i`$ and $`\mathrm{}_o`$, and it is not necessary for the determination of the value of $`\alpha `$.

There are yet more subtleties to be considered in applying the SCF to observations. Observed spectral maps are often Nyquist sampled, which means that beams of neighboring positions on a map overlap. Moreover, noise can be spatially correlated because of “bad pixels” in detector arrays, or because the data is obtained with “reference sharing”. Nyquist sampling, “bad pixels”, and “reference sharing” increase artificially the value of the SCF at $`\mathrm{\Delta }r=1`$ (and possibly the determination of $`\mathrm{}_i`$, if this relies on $`S(\mathrm{\Delta }r=1)`$), but not its values for $`\mathrm{\Delta }r>1`$. It is therefore possible to compute correctly $`S_0(\mathrm{\Delta }r>1)`$ and the spectral slope $`\alpha `$, without any detailed knowledge of observational procedures.

We have argued in §4.2 and 5 that the correlation inner scale, $`l_i`$, is a true estimate of the smallest self–similar scale in a map. Different factors can determine the value of $`l_i`$. One possibility is that dense regions of size $`<l_i`$ are indeed coherent (Barranco & Goodman 1998; Goodman et al. 1998), in which case the value of $`l_i`$ has a precise physical meaning, and may even be related to the process of the generation of star–forming cores. Another possibility is that the value of $`l_i`$ is affected by the depletion of the observed molecular species at high density, or by optical depth.

## 7 Summary and Conclusions

In this work we have studied the simplest form of the SCF proposed by RGWW ($`S^0`$ in RGWW), and we have discussed its dependence on noise, velocity sampling, and spatial sampling, using observational data, numerical simulations of magneto–hydrodynamic turbulence, and simple models of Gaussian spectral line profiles. We have computed analytically the effect of noise on the SCF, and have proposed to renormalize the SCF by its analytical maximum. As a result, the SCF now has only a weak dependence on signal–to–noise, because most of the effect of noise has been corrected for with the analytic formula. A new definition of “spectrum quality” has been used for this purpose, which we call $`Q`$. In the computation of the SCF we have never used Gaussian fits to the spectra, and we have used a velocity window of constant width, equal to 10 times the value of the standard deviation of the spectral profile averaged over the whole map. We have also computed the SCF as a function of the spatial lag between spectra, $`S_0(\mathrm{\Delta }r)`$, which has allowed us to describe spectral maps in terms of their spectral slope $`\alpha `$, and correlation inner scale $`\mathrm{}_i`$.

The main conclusions of this work are the following:

* $`S_0(\mathrm{\Delta }r)`$ is a power law in the range of scales $`\mathrm{}_i<\mathrm{}<\mathrm{}_o`$.
* The correlation outer scale, $`\mathrm{}_o`$, is determined by the size of the map; we have found no evidence for a true departure from self–similarity on large scales, in the map analyzed so far.
* The correlation inner scale, $`\mathrm{}_i`$, is a true estimate of the smallest self–similar scale in a map.
* The spectral slope, $`\alpha `$, is roughly independent of velocity resolution, spatial resolution, and average spectrum quality, $`Q`$; it is a robust statistical property of spectral maps of molecular clouds.
* The correlation scales, $`\mathrm{}_i`$ and $`\mathrm{}_o`$, are also roughly independent of velocity and spatial resolutions, and $`Q`$, if $`S_0(\mathrm{\Delta }r)`$ is properly rescaled to physical units of length.
* Molecular transitions which trace higher gas density yield steeper $`S_0(\mathrm{\Delta }r)`$ power–laws than transitions tracing lower gas density.
* Nyquist sampling, bad pixels in detector arrays, and reference sharing data acquisition need to be taken into account for a correct determination of the SCF at $`\mathrm{\Delta }r=1`$. The value of $`\alpha `$, however, can be computed correctly without a detailed knowledge of observational procedures.

We expect that the exact value of the spectral slope and of the correlation inner scale depend on the physical conditions in the clouds, such as the turbulent velocity dispersion relative the the speed of sound, the magnetic field strength, the effects of gravity, stellar outflows, and other influences. In our future work, the SCF will be applied to different molecular cloud maps and to different models, in order to study the sensitivity of the SCF method to physical conditions in the clouds.

We are grateful to James Moran and Ramesh Narayan for inspiring us to find a way to “normalize” the SCF, and to Urös Seljak for suggesting a formalism that led to equation 4. We also thank Jürgen Stutzki for helpful comments on this work as it was in progress. This work was supported by NSF grant AST-9721455.

Figure captions:

Figure 1: Upper panel: SCF versus $`Q`$ (see the text for the definition of $`Q`$), for a C18O (1-0) map of the Heiles Cloud 2 (deVries et al. 1998). Lower Panel: The same as above, but with the positions of the spectra randomized. The value of the SCF is not normalized to its analytic approximation (see text).

Figure 2: Left panel: SCF versus rms antenna temperature, for a smooth map of noiseless Gaussian spectra (solid line), and for noiseless synthetic spectra , computed using the results of MHD turbulence simulations (scatter plot). Both the decrease of the values of the SCF and the increase in its dispersion occurs even without noise, and are just the effect of structure in the map (cloud structure) and in the velocity profile of individual spectra. The map of gaussian spectra has a linear intensity gradient along one axis, such that the total intensity varies by a factor of 2 over the whole map. Central and right panel: Same as left panel, but with uniform Gaussian noise added to the spectra. The SCF is now plotted versus $`Q`$. The values of the SCF of the two models are still different after noise has been added, which confirms that the SCF versus the $`S/N`$ can be used as a tool to describe spectral line data cubes, even if the gross shape of the scatter plots is mostly due to the effect of noise.

Figure 3: $`S/N`$, as defined in this work, plotted against the usual definition of $`S/N`$, based on Gaussian fits to the spectra. The spectra from the Heiles Cloud 2 map are used. Each panel shows the scatter plot for a different value of the width of the velocity window, $`W`$. The parameter $`\sigma `$ is the standard deviation of the spectrum averaged over the whole map. The value used to compute the SCF in this work is $`W=10\sigma `$.

Figure 4: SCF versus $`Q`$ in the model of Gaussian velocity profiles. The continuous line is the analytic maximum SCF as a function of $`Q`$, derived under the assumption that neighboring spectra are identical, apart from differences due only to instrumental noise. The analytic function, $`11/Q`$, provides an excellent fit to the Gaussian model.

Figure 5: Left panels: normalized SCF versus $`Q`$ for the MHD model (two top panels), and the Heiles Cloud 2 data (two bottom panels). The normalized SCF is obtained by dividing the SCF by the analytic function, $`11/Q`$. Right panels: Histograms of the normalized SCF plotted in the left panels. Only points from the left panels with $`Q>2`$ are used, since spectra with $`Q<2`$ are dominated by noise.

Figure 6: Average values of the normalized SCF, using only pixels with $`Q>2`$, as a function of $`Q`$ averaged over the whole map. The value of $`Q`$ is varied by adding different levels of noise to the synthetic spectra. The plot is computed using a map of 90x90 synthetic 13CO spectra, from Padoan et al. (1999).

Figure 7: Average values of the normalized SCF over the Heiles Cloud 2 map (only spectra with $`Q>2`$ are used), as a function of the velocity window, $`W`$, used in the computation of the SCF. The larger the velocity window, the smaller the values of the SCF of the spectra with randomized positions, because more noise enters the comparison of neighboring spectra. This does not happen for the SCF of the original map, because the effect of noise is appropriately corrected for. The definition of $`\sigma `$ is the same as in Figure 3.

Figure 8: $`S_0(\mathrm{\Delta }r)`$ for the MHD turbulence model, the Gaussian model, and the map of the Heiles Cloud 2, computed only for spectra with $`Q>2`$. The spectral slope of the MHD model should not be compared with the Heiles Cloud 2 spectral slope, although very similar, since the two maps have been obtained with different molecular transitions.

Figure 9: $`S_0(\mathrm{\Delta }r)`$ of spectral maps of different molecular transitions, computed only for spectra with $`Q>2`$. The plot is computed using maps of 90x90 synthetic 12CO, 13CO, and CS spectra, from Padoan et al. (1999). The same three dimensional cloud model, from numerical simulations of super–sonic MHD turbulence, has been used in all three cases. The value of the spectral slope is larger for molecular transitions which trace a higher gas density than for transition tracing a lower density.

Figure 11: $`S_0(\mathrm{\Delta }r)`$ for the same synthetic map, with different average spectrum quality $`Q`$. Different spectrum quality are obtained by adding different levels of noise to the synthetic spectra.

Figure 11: $`S_0(\mathrm{\Delta }r)`$ of spectral maps of different resolution. Left panel: $`S_0(\mathrm{\Delta }r)`$ for the original Heiles Cloud 2 map (squared symbols), and the same map rebinned to a size three times smaller (asterisks). Right panel: Same as left panel, but for the synthetic map.

Figure 12: $`S_0(\mathrm{\Delta }r)`$ of the Rosette Molecular Cloud 13CO maps by Blitz & Stark (1986) and by Heyer et al. (2000) (see text for details). Triangles represent the portion of the Blitz & Stark map that covers the same area mapped by Heyer et al. (2000).


text:
# Some Common Problems and Challenges that Emission-Line Stars Present

## 1. Introduction

The study of emission-line stars presents many opportunities to probe the physical nature of stellar atmospheres and stellar environments and also to investigate little understood modes of stellar evolution. This has been the theme of much of this meeting. In an attempt to show that we have as yet only begun to unlock this rich source of information, this paper begins with a discussion of results obtained using archival spectra of $`\eta `$ Carinae and then examines two classes of emission-line stars which have not so far been mentioned at this meeting but which would repay further quantitative study.

## 2. Archival Spectra of $`\eta `$ Carinae

Gaviola (1953) found that there was a marked difference between spectra of $`\eta `$ Car taken in 1948 and those taken in 1947 and 1949. HeI, \[NeIII\] and various other emission lines of above average excitation were missing in 1948. A similar low excitation event was found to occur in 1965 (Thackeray 1967, Rogers & Searle 1967) and another in 1981 (Whitelock et al. 1983, Zanella et al. 1984). In the latter case the low excitation phase occurred when the infrared ($`JHKL`$) flux was near a maximum in its $``$ 5 year cycle. Damineli (1996) showed that these low excitation events all occurred at the same phase in his proposed 5.52 year period. As one part of a recent study of $`\eta `$ Car (Feast, Whitelock & Marang 2000) we have examined spectra in the archives of the South African Astronomical Observatory (SAAO) for further evidence of variability. The bulk of these spectra were taken by A.D. Thackeray between 1951 and 1978. He made a large number of observations of the central object (as seen from the ground) and of portions of the homunculus as well as other surrounding nebulosity. Although there may well be relatively subtle differences between different spectra of the central object, including secular variations, it proved quite easy to classify spectra either as in a high or a low excitation state with only one, rather doubtful, intermediate case. Thackeray’s plates reveal three previously unrecorded epochs of low excitation. Taken together with other evidence in the literature, these results show (see Fig. 1) that epochs of low excitation have occurred regularly in the 2020 day period proposed by Damineli et al. (2000), at least since 1948. The low excitation lasts about 10 percent of the period though there is probably some slight variation in the phase of its onset and end. The epochs of low excitation have the same phase and duration as the eclipse shown by the infrared light curves (Whitelock 2001). It is known (Davidson et al. 1997) that the (sharp) emission lines used to judge the high/low excitation phase come from plasma blobs about 0.2 arcsec from the central object itself. The association of the low excitation phases with the eclipse phases then presumably indicates that the relevant emission lines are radiatively excited and, on a binary model, that the blobs lie in or near the orbital plane of the binary. This is consistent with the blobs lying near the equatorial plane of the bipolar lobes as found by Davidson et al. (1997).

Whilst there are earlier visual and objective prism observations of $`\eta `$ Car, the first slit spectrum seems to be that take by Gill at the Cape in 1899. This spectrum could not be located but reproductions of it have been published (Gill 1901). The Cape archives contain slit spectra from 1919 (Lunt 1919) and glass copies of the Lick Southern Station plates of 1912-14 (Moore & Sanford 1913 and unpublished). All the early spectra are in the low excitation phase and suggest that the object was always in a low state at that time. This result seems consistent with the evidence that the general level of excitation is increasing with time (Whitelock et al. 1983, Damineli et al. 1999). Presumably this is connected with the secular increase in brightness of the system. Although this brightening has in the past been ascribed by some workers to clearing of dust absorption, this seems unlikely to be the basic cause (Whitelock et al. 1983, Davidson et al. 1999). One possibility is that the increase in brightness and level of excitation is due to an increase in output from the “central engine”. On a binary model this could be due to increased wind/disc or wind-wind interaction.

## 3. Emission Lines in Mira Variables

One can classify the optical emission lines seen in Mira variables into four groups. (There are of course, in addition, maser and non-maser molecular emission lines in the radio region.) First, there are the Balmer lines and a few others which must, at least at some phases, originate within the stellar atmosphere itself because they are at times mutilated by overlying absorption. The evidence for this is rather conclusive (e.g. Merrill 1945, Joy 1947) despite the claim that the resulting unusual Balmer decrement can be alternatively explained by NLTE radiative transfer effects (Luttermoser & Bowen 1992). These lines are general believed to be excited by shock waves generated by stellar pulsation. Secondly, there are what appear at first sight to be a rather random selection of neutral metallic lines (lines of FeI (e.g. 4202A), TiI and InI). These were explained by Thackeray (1937) as due to fluorescent excitation (due to chance coincidences of energy level differences) by lines (principally MgII h and k) which are presumably associated with the first group. Thirdly there are molecular lines, including the fascinating case of AlH emission by inverse pre-dissociation (Herbig 1956, Herbig & Zappala 1968). Finally there are emission lines of FeII and \[FeII\] which can be found in some, and probably all, large amplitude Miras near minimum light. Along with these lines are semi-forbidden MgI\] (4571A) and some other forbidden lines (\[OI\], \[SII\]). The origin of the FeII and \[FeII\] lines is particularly interesting. There seems to be no indication that these lines are affected by overlying atmospheric absorption. This needs to be properly checked but it suggests that the lines are excited in an outer region of the star. This is indeed what Herbig (1969) deduced from a relatively simple semi-quantitative analysis of the line strengths. He found that the lines were excited in a chromosphere at T $``$ 4000K, i.e. significantly hotter than the photosphere. The excitation of chromospheres is a problem of continuing interest. How do Miras do it? The most likely mechanism is probably that pulsational shocks propagate into the outer atmosphere and excite a chromosphere. Wood & Karovska (2000) have recently shown that the intensity of ultraviolet FeII emission lines in Miras varies with phase, consistent with this hypothesis. The case of possible chromospheric emission in Miras is of particular interest because these stars are undergoing extensive mass loss and dust formation. It is not clear how these various processes are related although it is almost certainly misleading to think of the outer region of a Mira as consisting of well ordered layers. More likely is a low density region containing denser clouds. Chromospheric emission in Miras is particularly interesting since in late type giants and supergiants, in general, the strength of chromospheric emission is reduced by the presence of dust (see e.g. Stencel, Carpenter & Hagen 1986).

## 4. Emission Lines in R Coronae Borealis Variables (I)

The emission-line spectra seen from time to time in RCB variables raise a number of interesting problems which deserve more extensive quantitative study. These stars are highly evolved carbon-rich, hydrogen-poor objects (see e.g. Clayton 1996, Feast 1996, and earlier reviews). Their evolutionary history is still uncertain. They are high luminosity objects, typically with spectra similar to F or G-type supergiants. But they are almost certainly low mass objects. At random intervals RCB stars decrease rapidly in brightness by many magnitudes and then slowly brighten again. This behaviour is attributed to the star ejecting dense clouds of particles in random directions, one of which occasionally falls in the line of sight and causes an eclipse. It has been suggested (Asplund & Gustafsson 1996, Asplund 1998) that this behaviour is a result of the stars being at an opacity-modified Eddington limit. It may be recalled that the behaviour of the LBV variables, discussed earlier in this meeting, has also been attributed (e.g. Appenzeller 1989) to their being at an opacity-modified Eddington limit. One way in which these objects differ is that whilst RCB stars puff off clouds of limited size, the LBVs are thought to eject complete shells. Asplund & Gustafsson suggest that this difference is due to the fact that the LBVs are evolving to the red. Thus any expansion and cooling makes them more super-Eddington. The RCBs on the other hand are probably evolving to the blue thus expansion and cooling will tend to make them sub-Eddington. Asplund & Gustafsson speculate that this results in a local, rather than a general, instability and gives rise to the ejection of limited clouds rather than complete shells.

Since much of this meeting has been devoted to $`\eta `$ Car it is worth noting that Bidelman (1993) thought that the 1893 (objective prism) absorption spectrum of $`\eta `$ Car was similar to that of R CrB at maximum light in showing strong CI absorption. If this is actually the case it would add to the puzzle provided by Lamers et al. (1998) who found that the carbon abundance in the stellar wind from $`\eta `$ Car is greater than in the surrounding nebulosity. Perhaps this requires a two-wind model of some kind for $`\eta `$ Car.

Because the RCB eclipses are due to dust clouds they cannot be expected to repeat exactly, being dependent on the size, opacity etc. of the cloud. Nevertheless on some declines at least a very rich emission-line spectrum is found (e.g. Alexander et al. 1972). This is dominated by FeII and is, with some minor differences, a reversal of the absorption spectrum at maximum light. Evidently the main body of the star is eclipsed and we see the equivalent of the solar-eclipse “flash” spectrum. This spectrum changes, presumably as the eclipsing cloud expands and covers more and more of the outer atmosphere of the star. From being initially dominated by FeII emission, it changes to being dominated by TiII and ScII. It has been qualitatively suggested that these changes are due to a decrease in temperature, density and self-absorption with height in the outer atmosphere but a full quantitative discussion is required and might throw considerable light on this outer region which probably has a diameter roughly four times that of the photosphere. Note that these spectra are often referred to as “chromospheric”. However there is no evidence that the emission lines come from a region above a temperature minimum.

## 5. Emission Lines in R Coronae Borealis Stars II

There is another, entirely different, problem concerning the emission-line spectra of RCB stars which also raises a rather interesting physical problem.

In deep minimum the sharp-line spectrum referred to in the last section has completely disappeared. Presumably the star, including its outer atmosphere, is totally eclipsed by a dust cloud. The spectrum then consists of a small number of broad emission lines. The main lines in the optical region are HeI 3888A, CaII H and K, and the NaI D lines. Their width is $``$ 400 $`\mathrm{km}\mathrm{s}^1`$ (see, e.g. Alexander et al. 1972, Rao et al. 1999). These lines are characteristic of all RCB stars that have been suitably examined in deep minimum. They clearly originate far from the central star since they are unobscured. But where exactly do they originate and how are the excited?

One model has been proposed by Rao et al. (1999). They suppose that R CrB itself, and by implication all RCB stars, are binaries with white dwarf companions. The white dwarf, they suggest, is surrounded by an accretion disc which is the source of the broad emission lines. The width of the lines is due to the Keplerian rotation of the disc. The HeI emission is supposed to come from the inner parts of the disc. It is not then clear why the CaII and NaI lines have similar width to the HeI since they presumably would arise in the cooler, outer parts of the disc (or from elsewhere). This, together with the fact that the model requires that all RCB stars are viewed close to the plane of the supposed binary and the lack of any direct evidence for a white dwarf in any of the variables, makes the hypothesis rather unattractive.

There are in fact purely phenomenological considerations which suggest a quite different model (Feast 1996). When the dust cloud in front of the star is thin enough to see through, so that the star itself is dimly seen, one also detects absorption lines at $`200\mathrm{km}\mathrm{s}^1`$. These lines must come from gas entrained with the dust which is being driven from the star at this speed by radiation pressure. These lines may be seen at the start of a decline, as the dust thickens, or on the rise back to maximum light as the dust cloud expands and thins (see, e.g. Alexander et al. 1972). Evidently we should consider the star as being surrounded by a consortium of clouds, ejected on a quasi-continuous basis in all directions at a typical velocity of $`200\mathrm{km}\mathrm{s}^1`$. The displaced lines found are not only CaII H and K, and the NaI D lines (which are probably easily understood), but also HeI 10830A (see, e.g. Querci & Querci 1978, Feast 1986). This indicates that these dust and gas clouds contain HeI in the highly metastable $`{}_{}{}^{3}\mathrm{S}`$ state which is the lower level of both the 10830A and the 3888A lines. This being the case it is clear that when all but the consortium of clouds is obscured we would expect to see, as is actually found, resonance emission lines of CaII and NaI and also HeI lines resonantly excited from the $`{}_{}{}^{3}\mathrm{S}`$ state. The width of these lines would be $`2\times 200\mathrm{km}\mathrm{s}^1`$ as is indeed found. The case that the broad emission lines (including HeI 3888A) arise in the expanding dust/gas clouds thus appears to be rather strong. The problem then is how the $`{}_{}{}^{3}\mathrm{S}`$ HeI level, which is nearly 20 eV above the ground state, is populated. This is a question which has not been fully answered. It may be that some form of atomic collisions (Feast 1996) or shocks (as suggested by J. Linsky in the discussion at this meeting) in the fast moving dust/gas clouds could provide the necessary excitation. It should be remembered that not only is helium the most abundant element in RCB star atmospheres, but also that the metastability of $`{}_{}{}^{3}\mathrm{S}`$ HeI ensures that 3888A (and 10830A) can be resonantly excited many times from an atom in this state before it returns to the ground state. Thus the rate at which HeI atoms need to be raised to the $`{}_{}{}^{3}\mathrm{S}`$ state is likely to be quite low. Progress is likely to come from more quantitative observational work, from theoretical studies and, one might guess, from laboratory experiments. This may indeed be one of those areas where a solution to a problem lies in the collaborative efforts of astronomers and laboratory physicists.

### Acknowledgments.

I am grateful to Patricia Whitelock for data in advance of publication and for many helpful discussions.

## References

Alexander, J.B. et al. 1972, MNRAS, 158, 305

Appenzeller, I. 1989, in IAU Coll 113, Physics of Luminous Blue Variables, ed. K. Davidson et al. (Dordrecht: Kluwer), 195

Asplund, M. 1998, A&A, 330, 641

Asplund, M. & Gustafsson, B. 1996 in ASP Conf. Ser. 96, Hydrogen Deficient Stars, ed. C.S.Jeffery & U.Heber, 39

Bidelman, W.P. 1993, PASP, 105, 578

Clayton, G.C. 1996, PASP, 108, 225

Damineli, A. 1996, ApJ, 460, L49

Damineli, A., Viotti, R., Kaufer, A., Stahl, O., Wolf, B. & de Araújo, F.X. 1999, in ASP Conf. Ser. 179, Eta Carinae at the Millennium, ed J.A. Morse et al. 196

Damineli, A., Kaufer, A., Wolf, B., Stahl, O., Lopes, D.F. & de Araújo, F.X. 2000, ApJ, 528, L101

Davidson, K. et al. 1997, AJ, 113, 335

Davidson, K. et al. 1999, AJ, 118, 1777

Feast, M.W. 1986, in IAU Coll.87, Hydrogen Deficient Stars and Related Objects, ed. K.Hunger et al. (Dordrecht: Reidel), 151

Feast, M.W. 1996, in ASP Conf. Ser. 96,
Hydrogen Deficient Stars, ed. C.S.Jeffery & U.Heber, 3

Feast, M.W., Whitelock, P.A. & Marang, F. 2000, MNRAS, submitted

Gaviola, E. 1953, ApJ, 118, 234

Gill, D. 1901, MNRAS, 61, Appendix p.66 and 1901, Proc. Roy. Soc. (Lond.), 68, 456

Herbig, G.H. 1956, PASP, 68, 204

Herbig, G.H. 1969, in Les Transitions Interdites dans les Astres (1968 Liège Colloquium), Mem, in-$`8^\mathrm{o}`$ Soc. Roy. Sci. Liège, (5th Ser.), XVII, 353

Herbig, G.H. & Zappala, R.R. 1968, Z. f. Astrophys. 68, 423

Joy, A.H. 1947, ApJ, 106, 288

Lunt, J. 1919, MNRAS, 79, 621

Lamers, H.J.G.L.M., Livio, M., Panagia, N. & Walborn, N.R. 1998, ApJ, 505, L131

Luttermoser, D.G. & Bowen, G.H. 1992, in ASP Conf. Ser. 26, Cool Stars, Stellar Systems, and the Sun. ed. M.S.Giampapa & J.A.Bookbinder, 558

Merrill, P.W. 1945, PASP, 57, 178

Moore, J.H. & Sanford, R.F. 1913, Lick Obs. Bull. 8, 55 (no.252)

Querci, M. & Querci, F. 1978, A&A, 70, L45

Rao, N.K. et al. 1999, MNRAS, 310, 717

Rodgers, A.W. & Searle, L. 1967, MNRAS, 135, 99

Thackeray, A.D., 1937, ApJ, 86, 499

Thackeray, A.D. 1967, MNRAS, 135, 51

Whitelock, P.A., Feast, M.W., Carter, B.S., Roberts, G. & Glass, I.S. 1983, MNRAS, 203, 385

Whitelock, P.A. 2001, this volume

Wood, B.E. & Karovska, M. 2000, ApJ, 535, 204

Zanella, R., Wolf, B. & Stahl, O. 1984, A&A, 137, 79


text:
# 1 Introduction

## 1 Introduction

Professional astrophysics has a short tradition in Spain compared with other European countries. However, the inauguration of two world-class observatories (La Palma, Calar Alto) in Spain in the 1980s has allowed Spanish astronomy to develop rapidly in recent years, with a large increase in the number of astronomers, in the number of institutions, in public interest, and in funding.

We have made a quantitative study of the productivity of Spanish astronomy during the 1990s, in order to compare its standing with that of astronomy in other countries.

## 2 Growth of Spanish astronmy

The number of papers published per year per astronomer is shown in Fig. 1a for the two largest Spanish astronomical institutions (IAC and IAA, which include 50% of all Spanish astronomers), and examples of two small institutions, one old (OAN, founded 1790, with 15 astronomers in 1998), and one new (IFCA, founded 1994, with 12 astronomers in 1998). The data are taken from lists of publications provided by the institutions themselves. Fig. 1a shows that there are no significant differences between the productivities of astronomers at the different institutions, and that the number of papers per astronomer has risen by a factor of two between 1989 and 1998. The number of Spanish astronomers as a function of time was deduced from a variety of published statistics, including IAU membership figures for 1993 and 1998. The ratio between number of astronomers and gross domestic product (GDP) is now similar to that for most other countries active in astrophysics. Combining the estimates of the number of papers per astronomer with the number of astronomers yields, as a function of time, the estimated fraction of all astronomy papers worldwide published from Spain (Fig. 1b). Our estimates of the Spanish fraction are similar to those given on the ISI web pages. This growth over the last decade is larger than for any of the other top 15 countries active in astrophysics.

## 3 Impact of Spanish astronomy

As metrics of scientific productivity and impact, we counted for each country:

1. The number of papers published in refereed journals 1994-99 (data taken from the web page of ISI, the Institute of Scientific Information).
2. The number of citations to papers amongst the top-1000 most-cited worldwide, published during 1991-98.
3. The number of observational papers published in Nature during 1989-98 (from a total of 453). Nature has an impact factor (citations per paper) 8 times larger than any astronomical journal.

For each of the above counts, each paper was assigned to the country hosting the first author. Full details of the second and third datasets above, and a discussion of possible biases, are given by Benn & SánchezBenn & Sánchez (2000) and Sánchez & BennSánchez & Benn (2000).

Number of papers published (the first metric) is often used as a measure of scientific productivity, but may not reliably reflect scientific impact (the last two metrics). The average of the last two metrics is compared with the first, in Fig. 2, for 9 countries for which data on all 3 metrics were available. For 5 of the countries (the US, UK, Japan, Netherlands and Australia), the two fractions are similar. For Germany, France, Italy and Spain, the ratio between impact and total number of publications is a factor of $``$ 2.5 lower. There are several possible explanations for the lower fraction of high-impact papers in these counries. One is language bias (which can affect citation rates in a number of ways); in 4 of the 5 countries in the former group, most scientific discourse and publication takes place in English. Another possibility is that the level of resources provided affects the fraction of high-quality papers. In Spain and Italy, $``$ 1% of the GDP is spent on research; in most other countries (but including France and Germany), the fraction is $``$ 2%. A further possibility, highlighted by Nature Nature (1998), is that the academic environment in the former group of countries is more competitive, with most research done in universities rather than dedicated institutions, and with more open competition for posts (see Nature 1998 for discussion of the latter in Spain).

## 4 Conclusions

Spanish astronomy is a young science. The number of professional astronomers, number of papers per astronomer and fraction of papers (compared with the other countries) have all risen by a factor $``$2 in the last decade. The fraction of Spanish astronomical papers has risen from $``$2% in 1989 a $``$4% in 1998. However, the fraction of high-impact work has remained constant at $``$1% during this period. For Spain (and for France, Germany and Italy) the ratio between the number of high-impact papers, and the total number of papers published, is lower than for the US, UK, Japan, Netherlands and Australia. Possible reasons are language bias, smaller research budgets, or less competitive deployment of research resources.