text:
# Short-timescale fluctuations in the difference light curves of QSO 0957+561A,B: microlensing or noise ?

## 1 Introduction

### 1.1 Microlensing caused by the Galaxy and other spirals

Dark matter dominates the outer mass of the Milky Way. In principle, the population of the Galactic dark halo may include astrophysical objects as black holes, brown dwarfs, cool white dwarfs, etc., i.e., MACHOs (massive compact halo objects) with stellar or substellar mass, as well as elementary particles (a smooth component). Today, from microlensing surveys, we have some information about the granular component (MACHOs). The absence of very short duration events implies that the dark halo cannot be dominated by planetary objects. A joint analysis by EROS and MACHO collaborations indicated that MACHOs in the mass range $`10^7M_{}M10^3M_{}`$ make up less than 25% of the dark halo (Alcock et al. 1998). From a likelihood analysis, the MACHO collaboration concluded that a population of objects of mass $``$ 0.5 $`M_{}`$ is consistent with their first two year of data. These MACHOs with stellar mass would have an important contribution to the total mass (Alcock et al. 1997; Gould 1997; Sutherland 1999; Mao 2000). However, very recent results by the MACHO team, based on approximately six years of observations, point to a relatively small mass fraction (Alcock et al. 2000). For a typical size halo, the maximum likelihood estimates suggest the existence of a Milky Way dark halo consisting of about 20% MACHOs with mass of $``$ 0.6 $`M_{}`$. The EROS collaboration also agrees with this small contribution to the dark halo by $``$ 0.6 $`M_{}`$ objects (Lasserre et al. 2000). Lasserre et al. (2000) derived strong upper limits on the abundance of MACHOs with different masses. For example, $`<`$ 10% of the dark halo resides in planetary objects. Moreover, they ruled out a standard spherical halo in which more than 40% of its mass is made of dark stars with 1 $`M_{}`$. Finally, we remark that the Milky Way dark halo inferred from the likelihood method (best standard fits by Alcock et al. 2000) is consistent with the HST (Hubble Space Telescope) detection of a halo white dwarf population (Ibata et al. 1999). A population of cool white dwarfs contributing 1/5 of the dark matter in the Milky Way could explain all new observational results, but the hypothesis presents some difficulties (e.g., Mao 2000; Alcock et al. 2000).

The information on the nature of galaxy dark haloes is still largely based on a local spiral galaxy (the Galaxy), and so, the study of other galaxies seems an interesting goal.

The Einstein Cross (QSO 2237+0305) is a $`z`$ = 1.69 quasar lensed by a face-on barred Sb galaxy at $`z`$ = 0.0394. The time delay between the four quasar images is expected to be less than a day (Rix et al. 1992; Wambsganss & Paczyński 1994), and so, one can directly separate intrinsic variability from microlensing signal. For this lens system, light rays of the 4 images pass through the bulge of the foreground galaxy and there is a robust evidence that microlensing events occur (e.g., Irwin et al. 1989; Wozniak et al. 2000). The observed events may be interpreted as a phenomenon caused by the granularity of the matter associated with the nearby spiral. Very recently, for providing an interpretation of the OGLE Q2237+0305 microlensing light curve, Wyithe, Turner & Webster (2000) used the contouring technique of Lewis et al. (1993) and Witt (1993).

B1600+434 is another interesting gravitational mirage lensed by an edge-on disk galaxy. Koopmans & de Bruyn (2000) measured the radio time delay between the two images of the system and derived a radio difference light curve which is in disagreement with zero. They investigated both scintillation and microlensing as possible causes of the non-intrinsic radio variability. If microlensing is the origin of the ”anomalous” difference light curve, then it could indicate the presence of a lens galaxy dark halo filled with MACHOs of mass $`0.5M_{}`$.

### 1.2 Microlensing in the first gravitational lens system (Q0957+561)

A third well-known microlensed quasar is the $`z`$ = 1.41 double system Q0957+561A,B. The main lens galaxy is an elliptical galaxy (cD) at $`z`$ = 0.36. While the light associated with the image B crosses an internal region of the lens galaxy, the light path associated with the component A is $``$ 5 arcsec away from the centre of the galaxy. The cD galaxy is close to the centre of a galaxy cluster, and consequently, the normalized surface mass densities $`\kappa _A`$ and $`\kappa _B`$ are the projected mass densities of the lensing galaxy plus cluster along the lines of sight, normalized by the critical surface mass density. Pelt et al. (1998) used the recent values $`\kappa _A`$ = 0.22 and $`\kappa _B`$ = 1.24, which originate from an extended galaxy halo consisting of the elliptical galaxy halo and an additional matter related to the cluster. It is possible that a considerable part of the extended halo mass does consist of a dark component, although an estimate of the stellar contribution (luminous stars) to $`\kappa _A`$ and $`\kappa _B`$ is not so easy as in the Milky Way. For the image B, if the fraction of mass in granular form $`\kappa _{BG}`$ is dominated by normal stars and dark stars similar to the objects that have been discovered in the Galaxy (Alcock et al. 2000), and simultaneously, the main part of the halo mass is due to a smooth component ($`\kappa _{BG}<<\kappa _B`$, $`\kappa _{BG}<<`$ 1) and the source quasar is small, then we must expect some long-timescale microlensing event caused by one star (luminous or dark) crossing the path of this image. In that case of small source/one star approximation, the timescale of an event will be $`t_o`$(years) $``$ 17 $`\sqrt{M(M_{})}[600/v_t(kms^1)]`$, where $`v_t`$ is the transverse velocity, and the magnification of the B component has a typical duration of several years for a 0.5-1 $`M_{}`$ star and any reasonable choice of $`v_t`$. When $`\kappa _{BG}`$ is high ($`\kappa _{BG}`$ 1) and/or the source is large, several stars at a time must be considered and the model by Chang & Refsdal (1984) is not suitable. The small source/one star model by Chang & Refsdal (1984) was generalized in the case of a small source and a large optical depth (Paczyński 1986) and the case of an extended source and an arbitrary optical depth (Kayser, Refsdal & Stabell 1986; Schneider & Weiss 1987; Wambsganss 1990). Therefore, the formalisms by Chang & Refsdal (1984), Paczyński (1986) and Wambsganss (1990) as well as new analytical approximations seem useful tools for a detailed analysis of the optical microlensing history of QSO 0957+561. A long-timescale microlensing signal was unambiguously observed from 1981 to 1999; see Pelt et al. (1998), Press & Rybicki (1998), Serra-Ricart et al. (1999, subsequently Paper I). In this paper, we concentrate on the possible rapid microlensing signal. In a forthcoming paper, we will carry out a comparison between the annual differences (averages from January to December) $`BA`$ and the predictions from different models and physical parameters.

In the past, using a record of brightness including photometric data (in the R band) up to 1995 and a time delay of 404 days, Schild (1996, hereafter S96) analyzed the possible existence of short-timescale microlensing (rapid external variability on a timescale of months) and very rapid microlensing events (with duration of $``$ 3 weeks) in the double QSO 0957+561A,B. He found numerous events with quarter-year and very short timescales (a few days). S96 also claimed that the slower component (events with a width of 90 days) can be interpreted as the imprint of an important population of microlenses with planetary mass of $`10^5M_{}`$. Assuming an improved delay value of 417 days, Goicoechea et al. (1998, subsequently G98) showed a difference light curve corresponding to the 1995/1996 seasons in Schild’s dataset. G98 obtained fluctuations which could be associated with microlensing events, in fact, our results are in agreement with the existence of strong microlensing: the fluctuations in the difference light curve are clearly inconsistent with zero and similar to the fluctuations in the quasar signal. New work by Schild and collaborators pointed in the same direction: adopting a time delay of 416.3 days, Pelt et al. (1998) found that Schild’s photometry shows evidence in favour of the presence of short-timescale microlensing; Schild (1999) made a wavelet exploration of the QSO 0957+561 brightness record, and reported that the rapid brightness fluctuations observed in the A and B quasar images (whose origin may be some kind of microlensing) are not dominated by observational noise; and Colley & Schild (1999), from a new reduction of ”old” photometric data (subtracting out the lens galaxy’s light according to the HST luminosity profile and removing cross talk light from the A and B images apertures), derived a structure function for variations in the R-band from lags of hours to years, a time delay of 417.4 days and a microlensing candidate on a timescale of a day, which could imply planetary MACHOs in the lens galaxy halo. So, from the photometry taken at Whipple Observatory 1.2 m telescope by Schild, one obtains two important conclusions. First, there is evidence in favor of the existence of true short-timescale microlensing signal. Second, this rapid signal seems to support the presence of MACHOs (in the halo of the cD galaxy) having a very small mass. However we note that Gould & Miralda-Escudé (1997) have introduced an alternative explanation to the possible rapid microlensing in the double QSO 0957+561A,B, which is related to hot spots or other moving structures in the accretion disk in the quasar, and so, planetary objects are not involved.

QSO 0957+561A,B was photometrically monitored at Apache Point Observatory (Kundić et al. 1995, 1997) in the g and r bands, during the 1995 and 1996 seasons. Schmidt & Wambsganss (1998, hereafter SW98) analyzed this photometry and searched for a microlensing signature. Considering the photometric data in the g band and a delay of 417 days, SW98 produced a difference light curve covering $``$ 160 days and concluded that it is consistent with zero. There is no variation in the difference light curve with an amplitude in excess of $`\pm `$ 0.05 mag and the total magnitude variation of a hypothetical microlensing signal is assumed to be less than 0.05 mag (see the dashed lines in Fig. 1 of SW98). They employed this last upper limit to obtain interesting information on the parameter pair MACHO-mass/quasar-size. The lack of observed fluctuations rules out a population of MACHOs with $`M`$ 10-3 $`M_{}`$ for a quasar size of 1014 cm (25%-100% of the matter in compact dark objects). However, other possible scenarios (e.g., a small source and a halo consisting of MACHOs with $`M`$ 10-2 $`M_{}`$, a source size of 1015 cm and a halo with compact dark objects of mass $``$ 10-3 $`M_{}`$, etc.) cannot be ruled out from the bound on the microlensing variability in the 160 days difference light curve. In short, SW98 have not found reliable evidence for the presence of rapid microlensing events.

The gravitational lens system Q0957+561 was also monitored by our group with the IAC-80 telescope at Teide Observatory, from the beginning of 1996 February to 1998 July (see Paper I). We re-reduced our first 3 seasons (1996-1998) of QSO 0957+561 observations in the R band, made the difference light curves for 1996/1997 seasons and 1997/1998 seasons and studied the origin of the deviation between the light curves of the two images. All the results are presented in this article. The plan of the paper is as follows: in Sect. 2 we present the difference light curves and report on new constraints on microlensing variability. In Sect. 3 we suggest different models that explain the difference signal. In Sect. 4 we discuss the sensitivity of the telescope to different microlensing ”peaks”. At the end of the paper (Sect. 5), we summarize our results.

## 2 First three seasons of QSO 0957+561 observations in the R band: difference light curves

We have been monitoring Q0957+561 over the past 4 years (from 1996 February) with the 82 cm IAC-80 telescope (at Teide Observatory, Instituto de Astrofisica de Canarias, Spain) and have obtained a large R band dataset. The contribution to the solution of the old controversy regarding the value of the time delay ($``$ 400-440 days or $`>`$ 500 days ?) was the first success of the monitoring program (Oscoz et al. 1996; see also Kundić et al. 1995, 1997; Oscoz et al. 1997).

In order to give refined measurements of both time delay and optical microlensing, we have introduced some modification with respect to the original aperture photometry (see Oscoz et al. 1996). Reduction of the images A and B is complicated by the presence of cross contamination and contamination from light of the main lensing galaxy. The two kinds of contamination depend on the seeing, and it is not clear what is the optimal way of obtaining the best photometric accuracy. At present, we reduce each available night by fitting a profile to the images, which is consistent with the point spread function of comparison stars. This new method of reduction and the photometry from 1996 to 1998 (the first 3 seasons) are detailed in Paper I. A table including all data is available at `http://www.iac.es/project/quasar/lens7.html`.

In the QSO 0957+561 quasar, a time delay of $``$ 420 days is strongly supported (e.g., G98). Using our first 3 seasons of data, the time delay estimates (in Paper I) are of 425 $`\pm `$ 4 days (from the $`\delta ^2`$-test, which is based on discrete correlation functions) and 426 $`\pm `$ 12 days (from dispersion spectra). A comparison between the discrete cross-correlation function and the discrete autocorrelation function, indicates that a time delay of $``$ 417 days is in disagreement with the photometry (see Fig. 16 of Paper I), while a delay of about 425 days is favoured. Thus, we adopted a time delay of 425 days.

We concentrate now on the difference light curves. In order to estimate the difference light curve (DLC) for the 1996/1997 and the 1997/1998 seasons, we used 30 observations of image A corresponding to the 1996 season ($`A96`$), 28 observations of image B corresponding to the 1997 season ($`B97`$), 44 photometric data of image A in the 1997 season dataset ($`A97`$) and 84 photometric data of image B in the 1998 season dataset ($`B98`$). There are about 100 days of overlap between the time-shifted (in the time delay) light curve $`A96`$ and the light curve $`B97`$, and about 230 days of overlap between the time delay-corrected light curves $`A97`$ and $`B98`$. A main problem of the IAC-80 telescope (using the available observational time of 20-30 min/night) is related to the photometric errors. The mean errors in the initially selected datasets are approximately 19 mmag ($`A96`$), 24 mmag ($`B97`$), 28 mmag ($`A97`$) and 24 mmag ($`B98`$). For short-timescale microlensing studies, these errors are large and one must re-reduce the data (grouping them for obtaining lower errors). Because of the possible rapid microlensing variability on one month timescale, the timescale of the groups should not be too large ($``$ 10 days); it should not be too small for having a sufficient number of data, and so, relatively small errors. The re-reduced photometry consists of 12, 11, 22 and 36 ”observations” in four new (and final) datasets $`A96`$, $`B97`$, $`A97`$ and $`B98`$, respectively. These datasets are available by sending a request to `rmerino@astro.physik.uni-potsdam.de`. For groups in $`A96`$, the timescales are less than 3 days and the mean error is of $``$ 12 mmag, for groups in $`B97`$, the timescales are $``$ 8 days and the mean uncertainty is of $``$ 16 mmag, for groups in $`A97`$, the timescales are also $``$ 8 days and the mean error is lowered to $``$ 20 mmag, and for groups in $`B98`$, the maximum timescale and the mean uncertainty are 6 days and 16 mmag, respectively. Therefore, making groups with a maximum timescale of $``$ 1 week (the mean timescale is of $``$ 2 days), the mean errors are lowered in 7-8 mmag.

As we have seen in the previous paragraph, the brightness record for the A image ($`A96`$ or $`A97`$) is measured only at a set of discrete times $`t_i`$ ($`i`$ = 1,…,N) and the light curve for the B image ($`B97`$ or $`B98`$) is also determined at discrete times $`t_j`$ ($`j`$ = 1,…,M). Since the observational light curves are irregularly sampled signals, to obtain the DLC ($`A96/B97`$ or $`A97/B98`$), we can use different methodologies, for example, the interpolation suggested by SW98 or the binning that appears in G98. Here, we are interested in the DLC binned in intervals with size 2$`\alpha `$ around the dates in the light curve $`A^{TS}`$ (time delay-shifted light curve $`A`$). In other words, each photometric measurement $`A_i^{TS}`$ at the date $`t_i`$ \+ $`\mathrm{\Delta }\tau _{BA}`$, where $`\mathrm{\Delta }\tau _{BA}`$ is the time delay, will be compared to the observational data $`B_j^{MS}`$ = $`B_j`$ \+ $`<A>`$ \- $`<B>`$ at $`t_i`$ \+ $`\mathrm{\Delta }\tau _{BA}`$ \- $`\alpha `$ $``$ $`t_j`$ $``$ $`t_i`$ \+ $`\mathrm{\Delta }\tau _{BA}`$ \+ $`\alpha `$ ($`B^{MS}`$ is the magnitude-shifted light curve $`B`$). The values $`B_j^{MS}`$ within each bin are averaged to give $`<B_j^{MS}>_i`$ ($`i`$ = 1,…,N), and one obtains the difference light curve (DLC)

$$\delta _i=<B_j^{MS}>_iA_i^{TS},$$
(1)
being $`i`$ = 1,…,N. The observational process $`A^{TS}`$($`t`$) can be expanded as an intrinsic signal $`s`$($`t`$) plus a noise process $`n_A`$($`t`$) related to the procedure to obtain the measurements, and a microlensing signal $`m_A`$($`t`$). In a similar way, $`B^{MS}`$($`t`$) = $`s`$($`t`$) + $`n_B`$($`t`$) + $`m_B`$($`t`$). So, the deviation $`\delta _i`$ must be interpreted as a combination of several factors, i.e.,

$$\delta _i=[<s_j>_is_i]+[<n_{Bj}>_in_{Ai}]+[<m_{Bj}>_im_{Ai}].$$
(2)
If $`s`$($`t`$) is a smooth function, then $`s_i`$ = $`s`$($`t_i`$) and $`s_j`$ = $`s`$($`t_j`$), while when $`s`$($`t`$) is a stochastic process, $`s_i`$ represents a realization of the random variable $`s`$($`t_i`$) and $`s_j`$ denotes a realization of the random variable $`s`$($`t_j`$). With respect to the observational noise, $`n_{Ai}`$ is a realization of the random variable $`n_A`$($`t_i`$) \[similarly, $`n_{Bj}`$ is one of the possible values of $`n_B`$($`t_j`$)\]. Also, in Eq. (2), $`m_{Ai}`$ = $`m_A`$($`t_i`$) and $`m_{Bj}`$ = $`m_B`$($`t_j`$). From Eq. (2) it is inferred that the difference signal will be never zero, even in absence of microlensing. There is a background dominated by observational noise, which is present in any realistic situation. In the case of very weak or null microlensing, we expect a trend of the DLC rather consistent with zero \[taking into account the standard errors $`ϵ_1`$,…,$`ϵ_N`$ in the deviations estimated from Eq. (1)\]. However, in the case of strong microlensing, several absolute deviations $`|\delta _i|`$ should be noticeably larger than the associated uncertainties $`ϵ_i`$.

For the 1996/1997 seasons (from the final datasets $`A96`$ and $`B97`$), using a time delay of 425 days and bins with semisize of $`\alpha `$ = 9 days, we derived the DLC that appears in Fig. 1. Two thresholds are also illustrated: $`\pm `$ 0.05 mag (discontinuous lines). In Fig. 1, there is a ”peak” around day 1615: two contiguous points significantly deviated from the zero line, that verify $`|\delta _i|>ϵ_i`$. If the whole DLC is modelled as a single Gaussian event and the data are fitted to the model, we obtain that the amplitude and the full-width at one-tenth maximum (FWTM) of the Gaussian law must be $``$ \- 33 mmag and $``$ 14 days, respectively (best-fit characterized by $`\chi ^2`$/N $``$ 1). Apart from this very short duration event, which is probably caused by observational noise (see next section), there is no evidence in favor of the existence of an event on longer timescales. We note that ”event” is used in a general sense, and it may be due to true microlensing, observational noise, a combination of both or other mechanisms. In particular, none Schild-event (events having a width of three months and an amplitude of $`\pm `$ 50 mmag; see S96) is found. Although the difference signal is only tested during a 100 days period, to find a Schild-event belonging to a dense network of similar fluctuations (positive and negative), the ”sampling” would be sufficient. In any case, from our second DLC (see here below), we must be able to confirm/reject the existence of a network of events with quarter-year timescale and an amplitude of $`\pm `$ 50 mmag. Finally, there are derived bounds on the amplitude of the microlensing fluctuations of $`\pm `$ 0.05 mag, which are similar to the bounds for 1995/1996 seasons (see Introduction and SW98).

For the 1997/1998 seasons (from the final datasets $`A97`$ and $`B98`$), we also made the corresponding DLC. In Fig. 2, the DLC and two relevant thresholds are depicted. The difference signal is in apparent agreement with zero, i.e., Fig. 2 shows a noisy relationship $`B^{MS}=A^{TS}`$. We observe no Schild-events, and therefore, the total difference signal ($``$ 1 year of overlap between the time-shifted light curve for the A component and the magnitude-shifted light curve for the B component) is in clear disagreement with the claim that 90 days and $`\pm `$ 50 mmag fluctuations occur almost continuously. One can also infer constraints on the microlensing variability. In good agreement with the DLCs for 1995-1997 seasons, a hypothetical microlensing signal cannot reach values out of the very conservative interval \[- 0.05 mag, + 0.05 mag\]. We finally remark that the methodology introduced by SW98 (the technique of interpolation) leads to DLCs similar to the DLCs discussed here (Figs. 1-2).

## 3 Interpretation of the difference signal

The DLCs presented in Sect. 2 are in apparent agreement with the absence of microlensing signal. However, to settle some doubts on the ability of the observational noise in order to generate the observational features (e.g., the very rapid event in Fig. 1) and the measured variabilities (rms averages), a more detailed analysis is needed. In this section, we are going to test three simple pictures without microlensing. In brief, the ability of some models for generating combined photometries and difference signals similar to the observational ones is discussed in detail.

The observational combined photometry consists of both light curves $`A^{TS}`$ and $`B^{MS}`$. Thus, assuming that $`m`$($`t`$) = 0, the combined light curve (CLC) must be related to a process $`C`$($`t`$) = $`s`$($`t`$) + $`n`$($`t`$). The intrinsic signal $`s`$($`t`$) is chosen to be either a smooth function (polynomial; picture I) or a polynomial plus a stationary noise process (picture II) or a correlated stationary process (picture III). In the first case (picture I), we work with $`s`$($`t`$) = $`_{p=0}^n`$ $`a_pt^p`$ (when the CLC is reasonably smooth, this intrinsic signal is a suitable choice). The polynomial law leads to $`C_k`$ = $`_{p=0}^n`$ $`a_pt_k^p`$ \+ $`n_k`$ at a date $`t_k`$, where $`C_k`$ ($`k`$ = 1,…,N+M) are the combined photometric data. Considering that the process $`n`$($`t`$) is Gaussian with $`<n(t)>`$ = 0 and $`\sigma _n^2(t)`$ = $`<n^2(t)>`$, and identifying the measurement errors $`\sigma _k^2`$ with the noise process $`\sigma _n^2(t_k)`$, the probability distribution of $`n_k`$ at a given time $`t_k`$ is $`P_k(n_k,t_k)`$ = (1/$`\sqrt{2\pi }\sigma _k`$) exp(-$`n_k^2/2\sigma _k^2`$). Here, the angle brackets denote statistical expectation values. As the random variables $`n`$($`t_k`$), $`k`$ = 1,…,N+M, are independent (the noise is uncorrelated with itself), the joint probability distribution of the noise vector $`𝐧`$ = ($`n_1`$,…,$`n_{N+M}`$) is given by

$`P(𝐧)={\displaystyle \underset{k=1}{\overset{N+M}{}}}P_k`$
$`=(2\pi )^{\frac{N+M}{2}}{\displaystyle \underset{k=1}{\overset{N+M}{}}}(1/\sigma _k)\mathrm{exp}\{[C_k{\displaystyle \underset{p=0}{\overset{n}{}}}a_pt_k^p]^2/2\sigma _k^2\}.`$ (3)
Maximizing the likelihood function $`L`$ =$`\mathrm{ln}P`$ with respect to the parameters $`a_p`$, or equivalently, minimizing $`\chi ^2`$ = $`_{k=1}^{N+M}[C_k_{p=0}^na_pt_k^p]^2/\sigma _k^2`$, we find a possible reconstruction of the intrinsic signal (and thus, a model). If this procedure does not work (e.g., $`\chi ^2/dof`$ is relatively large, with $`dof`$ = N+M-(n+1) being the number of degrees of freedom), we perform a fit including a stationary intrinsic noise as an additional ingredient (picture II). This new ingredient can account for noisy CLCs. The intrinsic noise $`\eta `$($`t`$) is taken to be Gaussian with $`<\eta (t)>`$ = 0 and $`\sigma _\eta ^2(t)`$ = $`\sigma _{int}^2`$, and moreover, $`\eta `$($`t`$) is uncorrelated with both $`n`$($`t`$) and with itself. Now, $`C`$($`t`$) = $`\widehat{s}`$($`t`$) + $`\xi `$($`t`$), where $`\widehat{s}`$($`t`$) = $`_{p=0}^n`$ $`a_pt^p`$ and $`\xi `$($`t`$) = $`n`$($`t`$) + $`\eta `$($`t`$), and we focus on the global noise process $`\xi `$($`t`$). As the processes $`n`$($`t`$) and $`\eta `$($`t`$) are Gaussian and mutually independent, their sum is again Gaussian, and the average and variance of $`\xi `$($`t`$) are the sums of the averages and variances of both individual noise processes. The probability distribution of $`\xi _k`$ at an epoch $`t_k`$ can be written as $`P_k(\xi _k,t_k)`$ = \[1/$`\sqrt{2\pi }(\sigma _k^2+\sigma _{int}^2)^{1/2}`$\] exp\[-$`\xi _k^2/2(\sigma _k^2+\sigma _{int}^2)`$\], and the joint probability distribution of the noise vector $`\xi `$ = ($`\xi _1`$,…,$`\xi _{N+M}`$) should be $`P`$($`\xi `$) = $`_{k=1}^{N+M}P_k(\xi _k,t_k)`$. Finally, instead of the standard procedure (to maximize the likelihood function), we equivalently minimize the function

$$\widehat{\chi }^2=\underset{k=1}{\overset{N+M}{}}\{\mathrm{ln}(\sigma _k^2+\sigma _{int}^2)+[C_k\underset{p=0}{\overset{n}{}}a_pt_k^p]^2/(\sigma _k^2+\sigma _{int}^2)\}.$$
(4)
Through this method, the intrinsic signal is partially reconstructed. We find the coefficients of the polynomial and the variance of the intrinsic noise, but after the fit, the realizations $`\eta _k`$ ($`k`$ = 1,…,N+M) remain unknown. However, the derived model permits us to make simulated CLCs and DLCs, since only the knowledge of the smooth intrinsic law and the statistical properties of the noise processes are required for this purpose.

A very different procedure was suggested by Press, Rybicki & Hewitt (1992 a,b, hereafter PRH92). They assumed the intrinsic signal as a correlated stationary process. For this case III, it is possible a reconstruction of the realizations of $`s`$($`t`$), provided that the correlation properties are known. PRH92 considered that the observational noise $`n`$($`t`$) is uncorrelated with $`s`$($`t`$) (and with itself), and therefore, only the autocorrelation function $`K_s(\tau )`$ = $`<\stackrel{~}{s}(t)\stackrel{~}{s}(t+\tau )>`$ is needed, being $`\stackrel{~}{s}(t)`$ = $`s(t)<s>`$. The autocorrelation function of the intrinsic signal is not known a priori and must be estimated through the CLC. We can relate the autocorrelation properties to the first-order structure function $`D_s^{(1)}(\tau )`$ by

$`D_s^{(1)}(\tau )=(1/2\nu ){\displaystyle \underset{l,m}{}}(s_ms_l)^2`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}<[\stackrel{~}{s}(t+\tau )\stackrel{~}{s}(t)]^2>=K_s(0)K_s(\tau ),`$ (5)
where the sum only includes the ($`l`$,$`m`$) pairs verifying that $`t_mt_l\tau `$ (the number of such pairs is $`\nu `$). From the CLC, one infers (e.g., Haarsma et al. 1997)

$$D_s^{(1)}(\tau )(1/2\nu )\underset{l,m}{}[(C_mC_l)^2\sigma _l^2\sigma _m^2],$$
(6)
which is an evaluation of the difference $`K_s`$(0) - $`K_s(\tau )`$. As usual we assume a power-law form for the first-order structure function, and perform a fit to the power law. Finally, the variance of the intrinsic process $`K_s`$(0) is assumed to be the difference between the variance of the CLC and a correction due to the observational noise. The whole technique is described in PRH92 and other more recent papers (e.g., Haarsma et al. 1997).

### 3.1 The 1996/1997 seasons

For the 1996/1997 seasons, we first have done the corresponding CLC. In a second step, using the picture I (see above), we attempted to fit the combined photometry. A quadratic law ($`n`$ = 2) gives $`\chi ^2/dof`$ = 1.65 (best fit), whereas $`\chi ^2/dof`$($`n`$ = 1) = 2.52, $`\chi ^2/dof`$($`n`$ = 3) = 1.74 and $`\chi ^2/dof`$($`n`$ = 4) = 1.83. Thus the modelling of the CLC has proven to be some difficult. Fortunately, the inclusion of an intrinsic noise (picture II) with moderate variance does not fail to generate an acceptable fit. When the intrinsic signal is the previous best quadratic fit to which an intrinsic noise with $`\sigma _{int}`$ = 9 mmag is added, we obtain $`\chi ^2/dof`$ = 1.15 ($`\chi ^2`$/N+M = 0.95). The quality of the fit has changed significantly with the addition of the new noise, whose variance ($`\sigma _{int}`$ = 9 mmag) is less than the mean variance of the observational noise (= 12-16 mmag). In Fig. 3 (top panel) the CLC and the reconstruction are presented. The open circles represent the time-shifted light curve $`A96`$, while the filled squares are the magnitude-shifted light curve $`B97`$. The best polynomial ($`n`$ = 2) is traced by means of a solid line, and the two lines with points are drawn at $`\pm `$ 9 mmag (the best value of $`\sigma _{int}`$) from the polynomial. Apart from the CLC, we checked the observational structure functions $`D_s^{(1)}`$ \[see Eq. (6)\] and $`D_s^{(2)}`$ as well as the predictions (with respect to the structure functions) from our first succesful reconstruction. The observational second-order structure function is computed in the following way (see Simonetti, Cordes & Heeschen 1985; we take a normalization factor equal to 1/6):

$$D_s^{(2)}(\tau )(1/6\mu )\underset{l,m,n}{}[(C_n2C_m+C_l)^2\sigma _l^24\sigma _m^2\sigma _n^2],$$
(7)
where $`\mu `$ is the number of ($`l`$,$`m`$,$`n`$) valid triads so that $`t_mt_l\tau `$ and $`t_nt_l2\tau `$. Also, the predicted structure functions are

$`D_s^{(1)}(\tau )(1/2\nu ){\displaystyle \underset{l,m}{}}[\widehat{s}(t_m)\widehat{s}(t_l)]^2+\sigma _{int}^2,`$
$`D_s^{(2)}(\tau )(1/6\mu ){\displaystyle \underset{l,m,n}{}}[\widehat{s}(t_n)2\widehat{s}(t_m)+\widehat{s}(t_l)]^2+\sigma _{int}^2,`$ (8)
being $`\widehat{s}`$($`t`$) the fitted quadratic law. Fig. 4 shows the good agreement between the observational values (open circles) and the predicted trends (filled triangles). This result confirms that the reconstruction is reliable. The meaning of the two straight lines in Fig. 4 will be explained here below.

Our interest in this paper is less directly in the details of a given reconstruction of the underlying intrinsic signal than it is in analyzing simulated photometries consistent with the reconstruction and with the same sampling (dates) and errors as the measured data. The first model (M1) comprises the best quadratic fit in the absence of intrinsic noise (a smooth component) and a Gaussian noise process characterized by a known variance at discrete times $`t_k`$: $`\sigma _k^2`$ \+ $`\sigma _{int}^2`$. From M1 we derived 100 simulated CLCs and the corresponding DLCs. We remark that, in each simulation (CLC), N simulated data points represent a synthetic light curve $`A^{TS}`$, while the other M data are simulated measurements of the magnitude-shifted light curve $`B`$. Fig. 5 shows the relationship between the values of $`\chi ^2`$/N+M ($`\chi ^2`$ = $`_{k=1}^{N+M}[C_k\widehat{s}(t_k)]^2/[\sigma _k^2+\sigma _{int}^2]`$) and the rms averages of the DLCs (rms = $`[\frac{1}{N}_{i=1}^N\delta _i^2]^{1/2}`$). The 100 open circles are associated with the simulated photometries and the filled star is related to the measured photometry. The true (measured) photometry appears as a typical result of the model. One sees in the figure a broad range for CLC-$`\chi ^2`$/N+M (0.2-2.2) and DLC-rms (8-36 mmag), and the true values of CLC-$`\chi ^2`$/N+M = 0.95 and DLC-rms = 22 mmag are well placed close to the centre of the open circle distribution. Thus, the measured combined photometry seems a natural consequence of M1, which is a model without very rapid and rapid microlensing. However, due to the event found in Fig. 1 (around day 1615) and other local features less prominent than the event, we would be to doubt this conclusion and to study details in the synthetic DLCs. In Fig. 5, to provide some guidance, the open circles corresponding to simulated datasets with CLC-$`\chi ^2`$/N+M similar to the measured value have been enclosed in a rectangular box. Also, we have drawn an elliptical surface centred on the filled star, which includes (totally or partially) three open circles associated with the synthetic photometries analogous (global properties of both the CLC and the DLC) to the true brightness record. As we must put into perspective the very rapid event and other local properties discovered in the true DLC for 1996/1997 seasons, this DLC and its features were compared with the three DLCs that arise from the simulations. In Fig. 6 we present the comparison. All events (each event includes a set of two or more consecutive deviations which have equal sign and are not consistent with zero) has been fitted to a Gaussian law and marked in the figure. The measured DLC (left-hand top panel and Fig. 1) is not different to the other three. In fact, in our 100th simulation (s100; right-hand bottom panel), two events appear. The positive event is more prominent than the negative event, and this last one is similar to the measured one. With respect to the regions without events, the true variability cannot be distinguished from the simulated ones. To throw more light upon the problem, we searched for Gaussian events in 1/3 of all simulations (s1-s33), as a sample of the whole set of simulations because the computation turned out to be very time-consuming. The results are plotted in Fig. 7: amplitude of each event (mmag) vs. FWTM (days). There are a lot of events with amplitude in the interval \[- 50 mmag, + 90 mmag\] and duration $`<`$ 70 days. In particular, the probability of observing a negative event is of 15% and the probability of observing one or more events is of about 50%. So, it must be concluded that the noisy (around zero) difference light curve based on observations is totally consistent with M1, and the deviations from the zero line can be caused by the combined effect of the processes $`n`$($`t`$) (main contribution) and $`\eta `$($`t`$).

We also propose a reconstruction of the underlying intrinsic signal as realizations of a correlated stationary process (picture III). The observational first-order structure function can be fitted to a power-law $`E\tau ^\epsilon `$ (see Fig. 4, solid line in the top panel). If one considers this fit as an estimate of the difference $`K_s`$(0) - $`K_s(\tau )`$ for a correlated stationary process, then it is straightforward to obtain the predicted second-order structure function (see Fig. 4, solid line in the bottom panel: the prediction is irrelevant to reconstruct the intrinsic signal, but it is necessary for testing the consistency of the starting point $`K_s`$(0) - $`K_s(\tau )`$ = $`E\tau ^\epsilon `$) and to apply the reconstruction formalism by PRH92. Therefore, we are able to find the realizations of the intrinsic process at the observational times $`t_k`$ ($`k`$ = 1,…,N+M) as well as in the gaps between the observations. The PRH92 technique leads to an acceptable fit with $`\chi ^2/dof`$ = 1.18 ($`dof`$ = N+M-1), and our second successful reconstruction is showed in Fig. 3 (bottom panel). The knowledge of both the optimal reconstruction and the properties of the Gaussian observational noise process at discrete times $`t_k`$ ($`k`$ = 1,…,N+M), permits us to make 100 new simulations. In Fig. 8 details of the rms averages of the DLCs are provided (open circles). The observational DLC has a rms average (filled star) similar to the rms average of about 1/5 (20%) of the simulated DLCs. Furthermore, four simulated DLCs with rms in the interval \[20 mmag, 24 mmag\] (in Fig. 8, this range of variability is labeled with two horizontal lines) appear in Fig. 9. From the new model (M2), DLCs with no events (as in the analysis presented above, the Gaussian events are related to ”peaks”, or in other words, we only made events around consecutive multiple deviations with equal sign and well separate from zero) and DLCs that incorporate more or less prominent features are derived. We note that one DLC (right-hand bottom panel) has an event almost identical to the true one in Fig. 1 and Fig. 6. Fig. 10 shows the properties of all Gaussian events in the simulated DLCs with rms in the vicinity of the observational rms (open circles). The measured event is also depicted (filled star), and we can see two simulated events analogous to it. We finally conclude that the observational DLC is in clear agreement with M2, and so, microlensing would be not advocated. In this framework (M2), the observational noise process is a sufficient mechanism for originating the measured deviations.

### 3.2 The 1997/1998 seasons

The combined photometry for 1997/1998 seasons and the reconstruction based on a polynomial fit are showed in Fig. 11 (top panel). The open circles represent the time-shifted light curve $`A97`$ and the filled squares are the magnitude-shifted brightness record $`B98`$. There is no need for the presence of an intrinsic noise, and a simple quadratic law works well, leading to $`\chi ^2/dof`$ = 0.85 (best fit). In Fig. 11 (top panel), the solid line traces the reconstruction of the intrinsic signal. Besides the comparison between the measured CLC and the fitted polynomial, we tested the predicted structure functions. In Fig. 12 we present the observational $`D_s^{(1)}`$ and $`D_s^{(2)}`$ \[open circles; see Eqs. (6-7)\] and the predictions from the best quadratic fit (filled triangles; see Eqs. (8) with $`\sigma _{int}`$ = 0). The laws traced by the dashed and solid lines in this figure will be discussed below. It is evident that the behaviours deduced from observations and the predicted trends agree very well, and this result indicates that the reconstruction is robust.

The first model for 1997/1998 seasons (M3) consists of the best quadratic fit together with a Gaussian observational noise process (whose variance is $`\sigma _k^2`$ at discrete times $`t_k`$, $`k`$ = 1,…,N+M, being $`\sigma _k`$ the measurement errors at the dates of observation $`t_k`$). Using M3 we performed 100 simulated CLCs (and consequently, 100 simulated DLCs). The global properties of the simulated photometries (open circles) and the true dataset (filled star) are depicted in Fig. 13. If we concentrate on the simulations with $`\chi ^2`$/N+M similar to the measured value (rectangular box), the true DLC has a rms relatively small (of about 15 mmag), but consistent with the rms distribution associated with the simulated DLCs. We remark that 3 simulations (open circles in the elliptical surface around the filled star) are analogous to the real brightness record, and in Fig. 14, their DLCs can be compared with the true DLC. The measured difference signal (left-hand top panel and Fig. 2) is a quasi-featureless trend and similar to the other synthetic DLCs. There are no significant events in these four DLCs with small global variability. We conclude that a model with no microlensing (M3) has the ability of generating ligth curves like the real data for 1997/1998 seasons. Henceforth, we are going to treat the ”peaks” as top-hat fluctuations, i.e., given a ”peak” including deviations $`\delta _{P1}`$,…,$`\delta _{PP}`$ at times $`t_{P1}`$,…,$`t_{PP}`$, the amplitude and duration of the associated top-hat profile will be evaluated as the average of the individual deviations and the difference $`t_{PP}t_{P1}`$, respectively. In Fig. 14, a ”peak” (defined by two contiguous negative deviations, which are inconsistent with zero) appears in the DLC from the 7th simulation (s7; right-hand top panel). The ”peak” is marked by a double arrow that represents the amplitude and duration of the associated top-hat profile.

The inspection of the observational first-order structure function (see Fig. 12) suggests that the underlaying law could be intricate. To find the autocorrelation properties of a possible and plausible correlated stationary process causing the main part of the observed signal (picture III), this observational structure function was firstly fitted to a non-standard law $`D_s^{(1)}(\tau )`$ = $`E\tau ^\epsilon /[1+(\tau /T)^\lambda ]^2`$. As showed in Fig. 12 (dashed line in the top panel), the fit is excellent. However, when we attempt to reproduce the observational second-order structure function, an inconsistent prediction is derived (dashed line in the bottom panel). The prediction fails at $`\tau <`$ 70 days. Other functions led to fits more or less successful, and finally we adopted the point of view by PRH92. In Fig. 12 (top panel) one sees a power-law behaviour up to $`\tau `$ = 140 days. The drop at the largest lags is due to the coincidence of values in the starting and ending parts of the measured CLC. Therefore, we assume that the observational first-order structure function is a reliable estimator of $`K_s`$(0) - $`K_s(\tau )`$ at $`\tau `$ 140 days, whereas it is a biased estimator at $`\tau >`$ 140 days. The power-law fit to the data at lags $`\tau `$ 140 days gives the autocorrelation properties for the correlated stationary process, shown as a solid line in the Fig. 12 (top panel). The predicted second-order structure function (Fig. 12, solid line in the bottom panel) is consistent with the observational one up to a lag of 70 days, and it deviates from the observational trend at $`\tau >`$ 70 days. However, since the observational second-order structure function at lag $`\tau `$ is associated with the autocorrelation at lag $`2\tau `$, the observational $`D_s^{(2)}`$($`\tau >`$ 70 days) will be related to the autocorrelation at $`\tau >`$ 140 days, which is poorly traced from observations. Thus the deviation at largest lags is reasonable and the global prediction should be considered as a consistent result.

Once the relationship between the structure function and the autocorrelation has been established, we can directly obtain both an optimal reconstruction of the realizations of the intrinsic signal and a new model (M4). The relatively smooth reconstruction is showed in Fig. 11 (bottom panel; the $`\chi ^2/dof`$ value is of 0.86), and the associated model leads to 100 simulations, whose global properties (rms averages of the DLCs) are presented in Fig. 15 (open circles). In Fig. 15, a filled star represents the true rms average, which is consistent (although marginally) with the rms distribution from simulations. Finally, four simulated DLCs with rms $``$ 17 mmag (in Fig. 15, the upper limit of 17 mmag is marked with one horizontal line) have been selected for a more detailed inspection. We found noisy behaviours around zero and no events in these synthetic DLCs, i.e., the results agree with the analysis of the real difference signal for 1997/1998 seasons. The 4 quasi-featureless simulated DLCs appear in Fig. 16. We again showed that microlensing is not necessary. The real combined photometry and difference signal can be due to a set of realizations of two very different processes: a correlated stationary process (intrinsic) and a Gaussian noise (observational).

## 4 The ability of the IAC-80 telescope to detect microlensing ”peaks”

The sensitivity of our telescope to microlensing variability in a given observational DLC is an important issue which merits more attention. To explain the observations for 1996/1997 seasons and 1997/1998 seasons, we proposed (in Sect. 3) four models based on pictures including only an intrinsic signal and observational noise. The simulations arising from these models (100 simulated difference light curves per model) are a useful tool to study the statistical properties of the expected difference signal in the absence of microlensing, and so, to test the resolution of the IAC-80 telescope for microlensing variability. In Fig. 17 we present the probability distributions of the rms values (DLCs) derived from M1 (solid line) and M2 (dashed line). A value of about 20 mmag has a relatively high probability of 20-40%, while a rms exceeding 36 mmag is inconsistent with both models, as can be seen in Fig. 17. Fig. 18 also shows the probability of observing (in the absence of microlensing) different rms values: via M3 (solid line) and via M4 (dashed line). The rms averages in the interval 19-27 mmag are highly probable (20-40%), but a global variability characterized by either rms $``$ 12 mmag or rms $``$ 38 mmag can be excluded. As a general conclusion, the rms of the difference signal induced by noise does not exceed a threshold of 37 mmag. Therefore, the rms values of future observational DLCs can be used to discriminate between the presence of the expected background (global variability with rms $`<`$ 40 mmag) and the probable existence of true microlensing signal (rms $``$ 40 mmag).

The previous discussion on the global variability is interesting, but it is not the main goal of this section. Our main goal lies in discussing the sensitivity of the telescope (taking into account typical sampling, photometric errors, re-reduction and making of bins) to several classes of microlensing ”peaks” (the cores of the microlensing events). We have seen, in Sect. 3, a figure that shows the properties of the Gaussian events (amplitude and FWTM) found in a subset of simulations from M1 (see Fig. 7). Fig. 7 can be compared to the distribution of top-hat fluctuations found in all DLCs generated with M1. In Fig. 19 the distribution of the top-hat fluctuations (basically the properties of the ”peaks” associated with them) appears, and a direct comparison between Fig. 7 and Fig. 19 indicates the logical fact that Gaussian fits lead to longer durations than top-hat estimates. In the case of Gaussian fits, events with a duration (FWTM) of 1-2 months are abundant and only features with a timescale $`>`$ 70 days are ruled out. However, the ”peaks” (from M1) with a timescale of about one month are scarce. To discuss the power of resolution of the telescope for local microlensing variability we chose the top-hat fluctuations (”peaks”) instead of the events. The properties of an event (around a ”peak”) depend on the assumed profile (e.g., Gaussian, Lorentzian, etc.) and the global behaviour of the DLC, whereas the top-hat shape directly traces the ”peaks”, avoiding to make assumptions on their wings and the use of the rest of the corresponding DLCs. In a few words, the top-hat structures are more local and free from assumptions than the events.

The ”peaks” from M2 (Fig. 20) are not so numerous as the top-hat fluctuations inferred from the first model (M1). Moreover, the new cloud of points (open circles) is more concentrated towards shorter durations. In fact, all ”peaks” have a timescale of $``$ 20 days. When one takes M3 (Fig. 21) and M4 (Fig. 22) the situation is also somewhat different. The probability of observing a 40-60 days top-hat fluctuation is now of about 5%, although most features are due to a small gap of about 50 days around day 1815 (see Paper I and Fig. 2). Finally, Figs. 19-22 inform on the true ability of the IAC-80 telescope to detect microlensing fluctuations in an observational DLC free from gaps: a ”peak” with a timescale $`>`$ 40 days should be interpreted as a feature related to microlensing or other mechanisms different to the observational noise, while as mainly caused by the poor resolution at the expected amplitudes within the interval \[- 50 mmag, + 50 mmag\], the $``$ 20 days microlensing ”peaks” cannot be resolved. Even in the unlikely case of very short-timescale microlensing signal with high amplitude, due to the smoothing by both the re-reduction and the binning as well as the current uncertainty of one week in the true time delay, it would be not possible to reliably reconstruct the microlensing ”peaks”.

## 5 Conclusions

Several $``$ 1 metre class telescopes around the world are at present involved in different optical monitoring programs of quasars with the goal to detect microlensing. There are at least two ”modest” telescopes searching for microlensing signal related to a far elliptical galaxy (which is responsible, in part, for the gravitational mirage Q0957+561). The data taken at Whipple Observatory 1.2 m telescope and at Teide Observatory IAC-80 telescope together with the photometry from a 3.5 m telescope (at Apache Point Observatory) represent a great effort in order to obtain an accurate time delay in Q0957+561, follow the long-timescale microlensing event in that system and find some evidence in favour of very rapid and rapid microlensing (Kundić et al. 1995, 1997; Oscoz et al. 1996, 1997; Pijpers 1997; Schild & Thomson 1997; Paper I; S96; Pelt et al. 1998; SW98; G98).

With respect to the very rapid (events with a timescale $``$ 3 weeks) and rapid (events with a duration of 1-4 months) microlensing, the previous results (before this article) are puzzling. The combined photometries (CLCs) from data taken at Whipple Observatory only can be well explained in the context of a picture including intrinsic variability, observational noise and microlensing variability on different timescales: from days to months (e.g., S96). The long-timescale microlensing does not play any role in a CLC. In particular, S96 reported on the existence of a network of rapid events with a few months timescale and an amplitude of about $`\pm `$ 50 mmag (these features found by Schild are called Schild-events). However, SW98 concluded that a picture with intrinsic signal and observational noise (without any need to introduce very rapid and rapid microlensing) is consistent with the observations at Apache Point Observatory. SW98 really show a difference light curve in global agreement with the zero line, but some doubt remains on the ability of the observational noise for producing the negative and positive measured events around ”peaks” (a ”peak” is constituted by a set of two or more consecutive deviations which have equal sign and are not consistent with zero). In any case, SW98 observed no Schild-events.

In this paper, motivated by the mentioned intriguing results on microlensing variability, we analyzed the data from our initial monitoring program with the IAC-80 telescope (see Paper I). We focused on the possible presence of rapid microlensing events in the light curves of QSO 0957+561 and the sensitivity of the telescope (using typical observational and analysis procedures) to microlensing ”peaks”. Our conclusions are:

1. Using photometric data (in the R band) for the 1996-1998 seasons, we made two difference light curves (DLCs). The total difference signal, which is based on $``$ 1 year of overlap between the time-shifted light curve for the A component and the magnitude-shifted light curve for the B component, is in apparent agreement with the absence of microlensing signal. We can reject the existence (in our DLCs) of events with quarter-year timescale and an amplitude of $`\pm `$ 50 mmag, and therefore, Schild-events cannot occur almost continuously. On the contrary, they must be either rare phenomena (originated by microlensing or another physical process) or, because two observatories (Apache Point Observatory and Teide Observatory) found no Schild-events, untrue fluctuations associated with the observational procedure and/or the reduction of data at Whipple Observatory.
2. From a very conservative point of view, in our data, the amplitude of any hypothetical microlensing signal should be in the interval \[- 50 mmag, + 50 mmag\]. The rms averages of the DLCs (global variability) are of about 22 mmag (1996/1997 seasons) and 15 mmag (1997/1998 seasons), and reasonable constraints on the possible microlensing variability lead to interesting information on the granularity of the dark matter in the main lensing galaxy (a cD elliptical galaxy) and the size of the source (QSO). Thus the set of bounds derived from 1995-1998 seasons (SW98 and this work) rules out an important population of MACHOs with substellar mass for a small quasar size (Schmidt 1999).
3. In order to settle any doubt on the ability of the observational noise for generating the global (rms averages) and local (events and other less prominent features) properties of the DLCs, we have also carried out several experiments as ”Devil’s advocates”. The measured variability (the rms value, a very rapid event and some minor deviations) in the DLC for 1996/1997 seasons can be caused, in a natural way, by the observational noise process. In the absence of microlensing signal, we proposed two different models (M1 and M2; see subsection 3.1) whose associated photometries (simulations) are consistent with the observations. In addition, the DLC for 1997/1998 seasons is a quasi-featureless trend with relatively small rms average. To explain the variability in our second observational DLC, we again showed that microlensing is not necessary. Two new models (M3 and M4; see subsection 3.2) only including the reconstruction of the intrinsic signal (assumed as a polynomial or a correlated stationary process) and a Gaussian observational noise process, led to simulated DLCs in agreement with the measured behaviour.
4. We finally show that from a typical monitoring with our telescope (observing times, method of analysis, etc.) is not possible the resolution of $``$ 20 days microlensing ”peaks”. The confusion with noise does not permit the separation between true microlensing features and ”peaks” due to the observational noise. However, all hypothetical ”peaks” with a timescale $`>`$ 40 days must be interpreted as phenomena which are not associated with the observational noise (e.g., microlensing fluctuations). At intermediate timescales (of about one month) the situation is somewhat intricate. Given a measured DLC, the probability of observing one noise ”peak” (with a duration of about 30 days) is less than 10%. Therefore, if we search for microlensing signal and find an ”intermediate peak”, the relative probabilities that the fluctuation is a noise feature or a microlensing ”peak” are $`<`$ 1:10.

## Acknowledgments

We are especially grateful to Joachim Wambsganss and Robert Schmidt for helpful discussions and comments on a first version of the paper. This work was supported by the P6/88 project of the Instituto de Astrofisica de Canarias (IAC), Universidad de Cantabria funds, and DGESIC (Spain) grant PB97-0220-C02.


format: text

text:
# 1 The physics of skewed parton distributions

## 1 The physics of skewed parton distributions

In recent years much progress has been made in the theory of skewed parton distributions (SPDs). Unifying the concepts of parton distributions and of hadronic form factors, they contain a wealth of information about how quarks and gluons make up hadrons. Advances in experimental technology raise hope to study the exclusive processes where these functions appear.

While the usual parton distributions are matrix elements of quark or gluon operators for a given hadron state $`p`$, SPDs are obtained from the same operators sandwiched between two hadron states $`p`$ and $`p^{}`$ with different momenta, corresponding to the finite momentum transfer the hadron undergoes in an exclusive process. A good example for this is deeply virtual Compton scattering (DVCS). This is the process $`\gamma ^{}p\gamma p`$ (measured in electroproduction $`epep\gamma `$) in the kinematical regime where the photon virtuality $`Q^2=q^2`$ and the energy squared $`W^2=(p+q)^2`$ are large, while the invariant momentum transfer $`t=(pp^{})^2`$ to the proton is small. If $`Q^2`$ is large enough, the transition amplitude factorizes  into a perturbatively calculable subprocess at the level of quarks and gluons and an SPD, which encodes the nonperturbative dynamics relating the quarks or gluons with the proton states (Fig. 1a).

The key difference between the usual parton distributions and their skewed counterparts can be seen by representing them in terms of the quark and gluon wave functions of the hadron . The usual parton distributions are obtained from the squared wave functions for all partonic configurations containing a parton with specified polarization and longitudinal momentum fraction $`x`$ in the fast moving hadron (Fig. 2a). This represents the probability for finding such a parton. In contrast, SPDs represent the *interference* of different wave functions, one where a parton has momentum fraction $`x+\xi `$ and one where this fraction is $`x\xi `$ (Fig. 2b). SPDs thus correlate different parton configurations in the hadron at the quantum mechanical level. There is also a kinematical regime where the initial hadron emits a quark-antiquark or gluon pair (Fig. 2c). This has no counterpart in the usual parton distributions and carries information about $`q\overline{q}`$ and $`gg`$-components in the hadron wave function.

Apart from the momentum fraction variables $`x`$ and $`\xi `$ SPDs depend on the invariant momentum transfer $`t`$. This is an independent variable because the momenta $`p`$ and $`p^{}`$ may differ not only in their longitudinal but also in their transverse components. SPDs thus interrelate the longitudinal and transverse momentum structure of partons within a fast moving hadron.

SPDs have a rich structure in the polarization of both the hadrons and the partons. For quarks four different combinations contribute to DVCS. The functions $`H_q`$ and $`E_q`$ are summed over the quark helicity, and $`\stackrel{~}{H}_q`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{E}_q`$ involve the difference between right and left handed quarks. $`H_q`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{H}_q`$ conserve the helicity of the proton, whereas $`E_q`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{E}_q`$ allow for the possibility that the proton helicity is flipped. In that case the overall helicity is not conserved: the proton changes helicity but the quarks do not, so that angular momentum conservation has to be ensured by a transfer of *orbital* angular momentum (Fig. 3a). This is only possible for nonzero transverse momentum transfer, and therefore cannot be observed with ordinary parton distributions, where the momenta $`p`$ and $`p^{}`$ are equal. That SPDs deeply involve the orbital angular momentum of the partons is epitomized in Ji’s sum rule , which states that the second moment $`𝑑xx[H_q(x,\xi ,t)+E_q(x,\xi ,t)]`$ is a form factor whose value at $`t=0`$ gives the *total* angular momentum carried by quarks, both its spin and orbital part. For gluons there are corresponding distributions $`H_g`$, $`E_g`$, $`\stackrel{~}{H}_g`$, $`\stackrel{~}{E}_g`$, and an analogous sum rule exists.

There are SPDs with yet another spin structure . Distributions flipping the quark helicity are the skewed counterparts of the usual quark transversity distribution, but no process is known at present where they contribute . In the gluon sector there are distributions which change the gluon helicity by two units. Because of angular momentum conservation such a double helicity flip can be realized with ordinary parton distributions only for targets of spin 1 or higher , whereas the skewed distributions are accessible for nucleons if there is a finite transverse momentum transfer (Fig. 3b). These distributions appear in DVCS at the $`\alpha _s`$ level .

## 2 Phenomenology: the potential of polarization

The principal reactions where SPDs can be accessed are DVCS and exclusive meson electroproduction, $`epepM`$, where the meson $`M`$ replaces the real photon in the final state of Compton scattering. DVCS is special in its phenomenology, because it interferes with the Bethe-Heitler process, where the real photon is radiated from the lepton (Fig. 1b). In kinematics where the Bethe-Heitler contribution is large compared with the Compton process, one can use their interference term to study the latter, because the former can be calculated given knowledge of the Dirac and Pauli form factors $`F_1(t)`$ and $`F_2(t)`$ of the proton. This offers the unique possibility to study Compton scattering at the amplitude level, including its phase. The even larger pure Bethe-Heitler contribution can be removed from the cross section by various asymmetries. Different information on the interference term is obtained by reversing the lepton beam charge and by various asymmetries of the lepton and the proton polarizations.

To fully explore the physics of SPDs one will want to disentangle the contributions from the various spin and flavor combinations. For flavor the combined information from DVCS and from the production of mesons with different quantum numbers will be necessary. As for the spin degrees of freedom, the functions $`H`$ and $`E`$ appear for vector mesons, $`\stackrel{~}{H}`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{E}`$ for pseudoscalar mesons, and all of them for DVCS. To make further progress (and for instance to obtain the combination $`H+E`$ occurring in Ji’s sum rule) it is mandatory to perform measurements with polarized protons. While it is true that one can access polarization dependent SPDs in unpolarized collisions, one *needs polarization* in order to disentangle the different distributions.

With some exceptions, the unpolarized cross section and the different polarization asymmetries in DVCS involve all four distributions $`H`$, $`E`$, $`\stackrel{~}{H}`$, $`\stackrel{~}{E}`$ . Typically, however, some of them are suppressed by kinematical prefactors. The unpolarized DVCS cross section is dominated by

$$HH+\stackrel{~}{H}\stackrel{~}{H},$$

whereas with longitudinal target polarization one is mostly sensitive to $`H\stackrel{~}{H}`$. This provides a handle to separate $`H`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{H}`$, with smaller contributions from $`E`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{E}`$. The same is possible with the interference between DVCS and Bethe-Heitler, where with an unpolarized target one mainly looks at

$$F_1H+(F_1+F_2)\xi \stackrel{~}{H},$$

and with longitudinal target polarization mainly at

$$F_1\stackrel{~}{H}+(F_1+F_2)\xi H.$$

A way to access $`E`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{E}`$ without a large contribution from $`H`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{H}`$ is the transverse target polarization asymmetry in the DVCS cross section, which is a sum of terms where $`E`$ or $`\stackrel{~}{E}`$ are multiplied with $`H`$ or $`\stackrel{~}{H}`$. The same type of separation can be made in exclusive meson production .

The gluon helicity flip distributions discussed above can be isolated in the DVCS cross section through the angular distribution of the final state . This can be done without target polarization, but target polarization enhances the possibilities of extraction. With a longitudinally polarized target one generates a $`\mathrm{sin}3\phi `$ dependence in the interference between the Compton and Bethe-Heitler processes that is otherwise absent , and target polarization is again required for separating the different helicity flip SPDs.

## 3 Small $`x`$ or not small $`x`$

The momentum fraction variables $`x`$ and $`\xi `$ of the skewed distributions play different roles in the amplitude of physical processes: $`x`$ parameterizes a loop momentum and is always integrated over, whereas $`\xi `$ is fixed to $`x_B/(2x_B)`$ by external kinematics, where $`x_B=Q^2/(2pq)`$ is the Bjorken variable as defined for deep inelastic scattering. Broadly speaking, the loop integrals will however probe smaller values of $`x`$ when $`\xi `$ becomes small.

The physics questions one aims to study with SPDs typically change with the value of $`\xi `$. At moderate or large $`\xi `$ one expects to be most sensitive to the effect of the skewed kinematics, and to learn about the interference between different wave functions, including the regime $`\xi <x<\xi `$ where one probes quark-antiquark and gluon pairs in the target wave function.

As $`\xi `$ becomes very small, the relative difference of momentum fractions in the SPD is small over an increasingly important region of $`x`$. The hope here is that the measurement of SPDs can help constrain the usual parton distributions. Most studies have so far focused on vector meson production at small $`x_B`$, which is dominated by the square of the skewed gluon distribution $`H_g`$. Data from the HERA collider have already been used in an attempt to get information on the gluon density $`g(x)`$ at small $`x`$ . It is not a trivial task to relate a function $`H_g(x,\xi ,t)`$ of three variables to $`g(x)`$, but theoretical arguments  building on the QCD evolution equations for SPDs suggest that at small enough $`x_B`$ this can be done within reasonable uncertainties. There have been efforts to find a similar way to constrain the polarized gluon density $`\mathrm{\Delta }g(x)`$ from $`\stackrel{~}{H}_g(x,\xi ,t)`$ , but it turns out that for vector meson production this is not possible at the leading-twist level . Beyond leading twist theory is plagued with large contributions from infrared regions if the meson is made from light quarks . The only known process where $`\stackrel{~}{H}_g`$ comes in is DVCS, where it appears at the level of $`\alpha _s`$ corrections (as $`\mathrm{\Delta }g(x)`$ does in polarized deep inelastic scattering). No studies have yet been made of whether this might help in pinning down $`\mathrm{\Delta }g(x)`$.

Where the transition is between “large” values of $`\xi `$, where one hopes to learn from the effect of the longitudinal momentum asymmetry, and “small” values, where one expects this effect to be sufficiently under control to provide handles on the usual parton densities, is not known. This will probably have to be explored in the data. Many studies will not need to go to very small $`\xi `$ (note for example that Ji’s sum rule involves $`x(H_q+E_q)`$ where small $`x`$ is suppressed), and others will aim to get $`\xi `$ as small as possible. As far as spin is concerned, one expects that the parton helicity independent distributions will become more and more dominant at small $`x`$, just as happens with ordinary distributions.

Whereas moderate or large values of $`x_B`$ are kinematically accessible for a wide range of collision energies (although with different counting rates that need to be studied), small $`x_B`$ is of course the realm of high-energy machines. A specific feature of DVCS is that at given $`ep`$ collision energy and $`Q^2`$ the interference term with Bethe-Heitler favors the smallest available $`x_B`$, whereas the DVCS cross section reaches out to higher values, in a similar way as inclusive deep inelastic scattering. Given the rather complex structure of the interference term and the various combinations of polarization, it is difficult without detailed numerical studies to determine the “optimal” machine energy for studies of SPDs, even in a given range of $`\xi `$.

## 4 Experimental challenges (a theorist’s view)

The experimental study of SPDs faces several tasks:

1. Luminosity: some of the interesting channels have relatively small cross sections. This includes DVCS, whose cross section goes like $`\alpha _{\mathrm{em}}^3`$. For a quantitative study of SPDs, event statistics must be sufficient to allow binning in the different variables, $`Q^2`$, $`x_B`$, $`t`$, and to study angular correlations.
2. Large $`Q^2`$: in order to be in the regime where the QCD factorization theorems hold, one needs sufficiently large $`Q^2`$. What “sufficient” is has to be determined experimentally for each channel, by testing the predicted power-law behavior in $`Q^2`$ and the predicted pattern of angular distributions. This requires lever arm in $`Q^2`$, and to be on safe ground one will want to achieve large $`Q^2`$. For given $`x_B`$ it imposes both kinematical constraints on the machine (not very serious at high energies) and requires again good luminosity, because of the expected decrease of cross sections as a power-law in $`1/Q`$.
3. Exclusivity: For quantitative studies it is paramount that one knows the final state of the reaction. The processes $`\gamma ^{}p\gamma p`$ and $`\gamma ^{}pMp`$ compete with the cases where the proton dissociates into a low-mass system, say a $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ or the $`N\pi `$ continuum. Interesting in themselves, these reactions involve SPDs for the transition from the target proton to the hadronic system in question. In order to extract specific SPDs it is of course necessary to separate the corresponding channel. This is especially crucial for spin studies, since the spin structure of the transitions $`p\mathrm{\Delta }`$ and $`pp`$ is different. In the case of DVCS one also finds that with proton dissociation polarization asymmetries no longer remove the Bethe-Heitler contribution to the cross section (only the lepton charge asymmetry still does).

Detection and identification of the scattered proton (or hadronic system) is therefore necessary, unless the resolution in energy and momentum is sufficient to use the missing-mass technique with an accuracy of the order of the pion mass.

In addition to these requirements there is the strong physical motivation to have a polarized lepton beam and a polarized proton target. Given the boundary conditions 1. and 3. just discussed, it is not clear at present whether this can be achieved with fixed targets, and a polarized collider may be the most promising option. The wealth of physics to be learned about by studying skewed parton distribution goes with formidable challenges for experiment.


text:
# Prompt High Energy 𝛾-Ray Emission From the Synchrotron Self-Compton Process in the Reverse Shocks of 𝛾-Ray Bursts

## 1 Introduction

Gamma-ray bursts (GRBs) are widely believed to be caused by the dissipation of the kinetic energy of a relativistically expanding fireball with a Lorentz factor of $`\eta 10^2`$$`10^3`$ (see e.g. Piran 1999 for a review). After producing the prompt GRB, the shell impacts on the surrounding gas, driving an ultra-relativistic shock into the ambient medium, which approaches a self-similar behavior (Blandford & McKee 1976) after a short transition phase. This forward shock continuously heats fresh gas and accelerates electrons, producing a long-term afterglow. The initial interaction between the ejecta with the surrounding gas also leads to a reverse shock which propagates into and decelerates the ejecta. This shock, heating up the shell’s matter and accelerating its electrons, operates only once. Once the reverse shock crosses the ejecta, the ejecta expands and cools adiabatically. Transition of the fireball to the self-similar behavior occurs on a time scale comparable to the reverse shock crossing time of the ejecta. Thus, emission from the fireball ejecta is suppressed after the transition to the self-similar expansion.

A prompt 9-th magnitude, optical flash has been recently detected (Akerlof et al. 1999) accompanying GRB990123. The most natural explanation of this flash is synchrotron emission from a reverse shock propagating into the fireball ejecta after it interacts with the surrounding gas (Sari & Piran 1999a; Mészáros & Rees 1999). The reverse shock, at its peak, contains energy which is comparable to that of the GRB itself and the forward shock, but has much lower temperature than that of the forward shock. So it radiates at considerably lower frequencies. Since, during the prompt phase, the number of heated electrons in the reverse shock is $`\eta `$($`10^210^3`$) times larger than in the forward shock and the seed photon source is stronger, we expect a strong synchrotron self-Compton emission flux at high energy gamma-ray bands in the reverse shock. Here we present an analytic calculation of this synchrotron self-Compton emission and consider its implications for the prompt high energy gamma-ray emission detected from some GRBs by the Energetic Gamma Ray Experiment Telescope (EGRET) and Compton Telescope (COMPTEL) on board Compton Gamma-Ray Observatory (CGRO). Early discussions on the synchrotron self-Compton process in the reverse shock include the works of, e.g., Mészáros et al. (1993) and Sari et al. (1996), both of which, however, are quite different from our subject in many fundamental aspects.

## 2 The synchrotron self-Compton emission from the reverse shock

### 2.1 Reverse shock model

Transition of the fireball ejecta to the self-similar expansion occurs on time scale $`\mathrm{\Delta }t_{tran}`$ comparable to the longer of the two time scales set by the initial conditions: the (observed) GRB duration $`\mathrm{\Delta }t_{GRB}`$ and the (observed) deceleration time scale $`t_{dec}`$ of the fireball ejecta, at which the self-similar Lorentz factor ($`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$) equals the initial ejecta Lorentz factor $`\eta `$, i.e. $`\mathrm{\Delta }t_{tran}=\mathrm{max}[\mathrm{\Delta }t_{GRB},t_{dec}]`$ (Sari & Piran 1999b; Waxman & Draine 2000).

The deceleration time $`t_{dec}`$ is in fact the observer time at which the heated interstellar medium (ISM) energy is comparable to the initial energy $`E`$, i.e.

$$t_{dec}=\frac{r_{dec}}{2\eta ^2c}(1+z)=10\mathrm{s}\mathrm{e}\mathrm{c}(\frac{1+z}{2})E_{53}^{1/3}n_0^{1/3}\eta _{300}^{8/3},$$
(1)
where

$$r_{dec}=(\frac{E}{4\pi \eta ^2nm_pc^2})^{1/3}=3.7\times 10^{16}\mathrm{cm}E_{53}^{1/3}n_0^{1/3}\eta _{300}^{2/3}$$
(2)
is the deceleration radius, $`E=10^{53}E_{53}\mathrm{erg}`$, $`n=1n_0\mathrm{cm}^3`$, $`\eta =300\eta _{300}`$, and $`z`$ is the redshift of the GRB source. Since even long duration GRBs have durations of order of $`10\mathrm{s}\mathrm{e}\mathrm{c}`$, which is comparable to $`t_{dec}`$, we therefore take $`\mathrm{\Delta }t_{tran}t_{dec}`$ for the following calculations.

During the transition, the unshocked fireball shell propagates at the original expansion Lorentz factor $`\eta `$ and the Lorentz factor of the plasma shocked by the reverse shock in the rest frame of the unshocked ejecta is $`\overline{\gamma }^{rs}\eta /\mathrm{\Gamma }`$. According to Sari & Piran (1995), the reverse shock Lorentz factor $`\overline{\gamma }^{rs}`$ depends on the parameter $`\xi (l/\mathrm{\Delta })^{1/2}\eta ^{4/3}=2E_{53}^{1/3}n_0^{1/3}\mathrm{\Delta }_{10}^{1/2}\eta _{300}^{4/3}`$, where $`l=(\frac{E}{nm_pc^2})^{1/3}`$ is the Sedov length and $`\mathrm{\Delta }=c\mathrm{\Delta }t_{GRB}`$ is the shell width. If $`\xi 1`$, the reverse shock is Newtonian and $`\overline{\gamma }^{rs}1`$, while if $`\xi 1`$, the reverse shock is relativistic and $`\overline{\gamma }^{rs}1`$. Since the shell is likely to spread, which adjusts $`\xi >1`$ to $`\xi 1`$ (Sari & Piran 1995), the reverse shock we considered here will be always mildly relativistic ($`\overline{\gamma }^{rs}1`$) for typical parameter values of the fireball shock.

The distributions of the electrons in both the forward and reverse shocks are assumed to be a power-law of index $`p`$ ($`N(\gamma )\gamma ^p`$), with the Lorentz factor of the random motion of a typical electron in the shell rest frame being $`\gamma _m=\frac{m_p}{m_e}\xi _e\gamma _{sh}`$, where $`\xi _e`$ is the fraction of thermal energy carried by electrons (Waxman 1997a,b ). Here $`\gamma _{sh}=\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ for the forward shock while $`\gamma _{sh}=\overline{\gamma }^{rs}`$ for the reverse shock. Assuming that $`\xi _B`$ is the fraction of the thermal energy carried by the magnetic field, we have the peak frequency of the reverse shock emission

$$\nu _m^{rs}=\frac{1}{1+z}\frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }(\gamma _m^{rs})^2eB^{}}{2\pi m_ec}=1.6\times 10^{15}\mathrm{Hz}(\frac{\xi _e}{0.3})^2(\frac{\xi _B}{0.01})^{1/2}\eta _{300}^2n_0^{1/2}(\frac{2}{1+z}),$$
(3)
where $`B^{}=12\mathrm{G}(\frac{ϵ_B}{0.01})^{1/2}\eta _{300}n_0^{1/2}`$, is the magnetic field in the comving frame. Here $`\xi _e`$ and $`\xi _B`$ are the values relevant for the reverse shock and have been assumed to be not different from the forward shock (Wang, Dai & Lu 2000). The numerical values we have used are those characteristic of the forward shock (Waxman 1997a; Freedman & Waxman 2000; Wijers & Galama 1999; Granot et al. 1999). As this peak frequency we estimated is slightly higher than the optical band and it decreases with time after the deceleration time $`t_{dec}`$, we expect that the optical light curve should posses a short initial rise phase, and then decays with time, which is consistent with the light curve of the prompt optical flash from GRB990123. Waxman & Draine (2000) have also derived the peak flux for the reverse shock

$$f_m^{rs}=1.5\mathrm{Jy}h_{65}^2(\frac{\sqrt{2}1}{\sqrt{1+z}1})^2(\frac{\xi _B}{0.01})^{1/2}\eta _{300}^1n_0^{1/4}E_{53}^{5/4}(\frac{2}{1+z}\frac{t_{dec}}{10\mathrm{s}\mathrm{e}\mathrm{c}})^{3/4},$$
(4)
for a flat universe with zero cosmological constant and $`H_0=65h_{65}\mathrm{Km}\mathrm{s}^1\mathrm{Mpc}^1`$. This flux is consistent with the observations of GRB990123 within a factor of two, whose peak flux is about $`1\mathrm{J}\mathrm{y}`$ (Akerlof et al. 1999). The peak frequency of synchrotron emission from the forward shock is larger than that of the reverse shock by a factor $`(\mathrm{\Gamma }^2/\eta )^2`$, and is, at the deceleration time $`t_{dec}`$ of the ejecta,

$$\nu _m^{fs}=1.4\times 10^{20}\mathrm{Hz}(\frac{\xi _e}{0.3})^2(\frac{\xi _B}{0.01})^{1/2}\eta _{300}^4n_{0}^{}{}_{}{}^{1/2}(\frac{2}{1+z}),$$
(5)
since at this time the self-similar Lorentz factor $`\mathrm{\Gamma }\eta `$.

The cooling break frequencies , at which the cooling time scale of electrons equals that of the expansion dynamic time, are given by

$$\nu _c^{rs}=\frac{10^{17}\mathrm{Hz}}{(Y_{rs}+1)^2}(\frac{\xi _B}{0.01})^{3/2}\eta _{300}^4n_0^{3/2}(\frac{t_{dec}}{10\mathrm{s}\mathrm{e}\mathrm{c}})^2(\frac{1+z}{2})$$
(6)
for the reverse shock, and

$$\nu _c^{fs}=\frac{10^{17}\mathrm{Hz}}{(Y_{fs}+1)^2}(\frac{\xi _B}{0.01})^{3/2}\eta _{300}^4n_{0}^{}{}_{}{}^{3/2}(\frac{t_{dec}}{10\mathrm{s}\mathrm{e}\mathrm{c}})^2(\frac{1+z}{2})$$
(7)
for the forward shock, where $`Y_{rs}`$ and $`Y_{fs}`$ are the Compton parameters for the reverse shock and forward shock, respectively (Panaitescu & Kumar 2000). The Compton parameter Y, expressing the cooling rate of electrons due to inverse Compton effect, is defined as $`Y=\frac{4}{3}\tau _e\gamma ^2\overline{N}_e(\gamma )𝑑\gamma `$, where$`\overline{N}_e(\gamma )`$ is the normalized electron distribution and $`\tau _e`$ is the optical thickness to electron scattering. According to Panaitescu & Kumar (2000), $`Y_{fs}=\frac{1}{2}(\sqrt{\frac{5}{6}\frac{\xi _e}{\xi _B}+1}1)2`$, since the forward shock is in the fast cooling regime, while $`Y_{rs}(\gamma _m^{rs})^{p1}(\gamma _c^{rs})^{3p}\tau _e^{rs}3`$ for the reverse shock, where $`\tau _e^{rs}`$ is the optical thickness of the shocked ejecta to electron scattering, which will be calculated in the next subsection and $`\gamma _c`$ is the Lorentz factor where the total energy emitted at the time $`t_{dec}`$ is comparable to the electron’s energy: $`\gamma _c=\frac{6\pi m_ec(1+z)}{\sigma _T\mathrm{\Gamma }(B^{})^2t_{dec}}=\frac{4500}{Y+1}(\frac{ϵ_B}{0.01})^1\eta _{300}^3(\frac{t_{dec}}{10\mathrm{s}\mathrm{e}\mathrm{c}})^1(\frac{1+z}{2})n_0^1`$. The synchrotron spectrum of the forward shock is thus described as $`f_\nu ^{fs}=f_m^{fs}(\nu /\nu _c^{fs})^{1/2}`$ for $`\nu _m^{fs}>\nu >\nu _c^{fs}`$ and $`f_\nu ^{fs}=f_m^{fs}(\nu _m^{fs}/\nu _c^{fs})^{1/2}(\nu /\nu _m^{fs})^{p/2}`$ for $`\nu >\nu _m^{fs}`$; while for the reverse shock, $`f_\nu ^{rs}=f_m^{rs}(\nu /\nu _m^{rs})^{\frac{p1}{2}}`$ for $`\nu _c^{rs}>\nu >\nu _m^{rs}`$ and $`f_\nu ^{rs}=f_m^{rs}(\nu _c^{rs}/\nu _m^{rs})^{\frac{p1}{2}}(\nu /\nu _c^{rs})^{\frac{p}{2}}`$ for $`\nu >\nu _c^{rs}`$.

### 2.2 The synchrotron self-Compton emission from the reverse shock

The synchrotron self-Compton emission from the reverse shock can be calculated by using the above equations for the synchrotron spectrum and the Thomson optical depth of the shocked fireball material, which is

$$\tau _e^{rs}=\frac{\sigma _TN}{4\pi r_{dec}^2}=8.4\times 10^6E_{53}^{1/3}n_0^{2/3}\eta _{300}^{1/3}(\frac{t_{obs}}{t_{dec}})^{1/2},$$
(8)
where $`N`$ is the total number of electrons in the fireball and $`\sigma _T`$ is the Thomson scattering cross section. This inverse Compton luminosity for the reverse shock is larger than the synchrotron luminosity by a factor $`L_{IC}/L_{sy}Y_{rs}3`$ , dominating the synchrotron cooling rate of the electrons, and radiates at much higher energy band than the synchrotron emission. We need consider only the first-order inverse Compton and neglect the higher order inverse Compton process, because a once-scattered synchrotron photon has energy of order $`(h\nu _{min})_{com}\gamma _e^3>m_ec^2`$ in the rest frame of the second scattering electron with Lorentz factor being $`\gamma _e`$ and thus the Thomson limit no longer applies. Since the reverse shock is in the slow cooling regime, the up-scattered spectrum peaks at

$$\nu _m^{rs,IC}=2(\gamma _m^{rs})^2\nu _m^{rs}=1.0\times 10^{21}\mathrm{Hz}(\frac{\xi _e}{0.3})^4(\frac{\xi _B}{0.01})^{1/2}\eta _{300}^2n_0^{1/2}(\frac{\overline{\gamma }_{rs}}{1})^2(\frac{2.0}{1+z}),$$
(9)
and the cooling break frequency, at the deceleration time $`t_{dec}`$, is

$$\nu _c^{rs,IC}=2(\gamma _c^{rs})^2\nu _c^{rs}=2.1\times 10^{22}\mathrm{Hz}(\frac{\xi _B}{0.01})^{7/2}\eta _{300}^{2/3}n_0^{13/6}E_{53}^{4/3}(\frac{2}{1+z}),$$
(10)
where we have substituted the expression of $`t_{dec}`$ (Eq.1)into it. At this deceleration time of the ejecta, the peak flux of the inverse Compton component is

$$f_{max}^{rs,IC}=\tau _e^{rs}f_m^{rs}=2.6\times 10^8\mathrm{erg}\mathrm{cm}^2\mathrm{s}^1\mathrm{MeV}^1E_{53}^{4/3}n_0^{7/6}\eta _{300}^{4/3}(\frac{\xi _B}{0.01})^{1/2}h_{65}^2(\frac{\sqrt{2}1}{\sqrt{1+z}1})^2.$$
(11)
For the simplicity of the analysis, we use the broken-power law approximation to the inverse Compton component, though the presence of logarithmic terms makes some corrections to the spectrum for $`\nu >\nu _m^{rs,IC}`$ (Sari & Esin 2000), i.e. $`f_\nu ^{rs,IC}=f_m^{rs,IC}(\nu /\nu _m^{rs,IC})^{\frac{p1}{2}}`$ for $`\nu _c^{rs,IC}>\nu >\nu _m^{rs,IC}`$ and $`f_\nu ^{rs,IC}=f_m^{rs,IC}(\nu _c^{rs,IC}/\nu _m^{rs,IC})^{\frac{p1}{2}}(\nu /\nu _c^{rs,IC})^{\frac{p}{2}}`$ for $`\nu >\nu _c^{rs,IC}`$. For the sake of comparison, we give the flux of the inverse Compton component at three representative frequencies:

$`f^{rs,IC}(\epsilon =5\mathrm{M}\mathrm{e}\mathrm{V})=2.6\times 10^8\mathrm{erg}\mathrm{cm}^2\mathrm{s}^1\mathrm{MeV}^1E_{53}^{4/3};`$
$`f^{rs,IC}(\epsilon =100\mathrm{M}\mathrm{e}\mathrm{V})=2.7\times 10^9\mathrm{erg}\mathrm{cm}^2\mathrm{s}^1\mathrm{MeV}^1E_{53}^{4/3};`$
$`f^{rs,IC}(\epsilon =1\mathrm{G}\mathrm{e}\mathrm{V})=1.5\times 10^{10}\mathrm{erg}\mathrm{cm}^2\mathrm{s}^1\mathrm{MeV}^1E_{53}^{2/3},`$ (12)
where we have only retained the relations with the shock energy $`E_{53}`$ and replaced other shock parameters and the redshift with the typical values.

After the reverse shock has passed through the ejecta, the ejecta cools adiabatically. Sari & Piran (1999a) assumed that the ejecta follows the Blandford-McKee (1976) self-similar solution, in which a given fluid element evolves with a bulk Lorentz factor of $`\gamma R^{7/2}`$, and successfully explained the decaying light curve of the optical flash and the radio flare behavior of GRB990123 (Kulkarni et al. 1999). Below we will give the decaying light curve of the synchrotron self-Compton component of the reverse shock after it has passed through the ejecta ($`t_{obs}>t_{dec}`$). Since $`f_m^{rs}t_{obs}^{47/48}t_{obs}^1`$ and $`\tau _e^{rs}t_{obs}^{1/2}`$, the peak flux of the inverse Compton spectral component $`f_m^{rs,IC}=f_m^{rs}\tau _e^{rs}t_{obs}^{3/2}`$. If the observed frequency locates between the two break frequencies ($`\nu _c^{rs,IC}<\nu <\nu _m^{rs,IC}`$), then $`f_\nu ^{rs,IC}=f_m^{rs,IC}(\frac{\nu }{\nu _m^{rs,IC}})^{(p1)/2}`$. According to Sari & Piran (1999a), $`\gamma _mt_{obs}^{13/48}`$ and $`\nu _m^{rs}t_{obs}^{73/48}`$, so $`\nu _m^{rs,IC}=2\gamma _m^2\nu _m^{rs}t_{obs}^{33/16}t_{obs}^2`$, thus $`f_\nu ^{rs,IC}t_{obs}^{1/2p}t_{obs}^3`$ for $`p=2.5`$. On the other hand, if the observed frequency is above $`\nu _c^{rs,IC}`$, the flux drops exponentially with time since all the electrons above the corresponding energy cool and no fresh electrons are accelerated once the reverse shock has crossed the ejecta shell. Therefore, in general, we expect to see a rapidly decaying high energy flux from the reverse shock, which constitutes a unique characteristic distinguished from other models (see the next subsection) suggested for the observed high energy gamma-ray emission from some GRBs. Measurements of the time dependence of the high energy gamma-ray flux with the planned Gamma-ray Large Area Space Telescope (GLAST) mission will test this synchrotron self-Compton scenario.

### 2.3 Detectablity of the prompt high energy gamma-rays and the case of GRB930131

EGRET has detected prompt emission above $`30\mathrm{M}\mathrm{e}\mathrm{V}`$ from seven bright GRBs triggered by BATSE (Catelli et al. 1998), among which $`1.2\mathrm{GeV}`$ and $`3.4\mathrm{GeV}`$ photons have been detected from GRB930131 (Sommer et al. 1994; Ryan et al. 1994) and GRB940217 (Hurley et al. 1994), respectively. GRB940217 also displays delayed high energy gamma-ray emission, about 90 minutes after the initial trigger. There are a handful models suggested to explain the delayed and prompt GeV emission. For examples, Katz (1994) suggested that the impact of the fireballs with dense clouds ($`n10^9\mathrm{cm}^3`$) could yield high energy gamma-ray emission via $`\pi ^0`$ decay; Waxman & Coppi (1996) proposed that the cascading of ultra high energy ($`10^{19}\mathrm{eV}`$) cosmic rays (accelerated in cosmological GRBs) off infra-red and cosmic microwave background fields can produce delayed GeV-TeV emission due to the deflections by the intergalactic magnetic field; Dermer et al. (2000) argued that the synchrotron self-compton emission from the forward shock expanding into a rather dense circumburst medium ($`n100\mathrm{c}\mathrm{m}^3`$) may be responsible for the prompt and delayed high energy gamma-ray emission; Vietri (1997) and Totani (1998) suggested that the synchrotron emission of the protons may be responsible for the GeV-TeV emission. Here we suggest that the synchrotron self-Compton emission from the reverse shock could explain both the flux level and the spectrum of the high energy gamma-rays detected by EGERT. As an example, we discuss the case of GRB930131. The high energy gamma-ray emission from GRB930131 extends for about $`25\mathrm{s}`$. Totally sixteen gamma rays above $`30\mathrm{M}\mathrm{e}\mathrm{V}`$ were detected, including two with energy about $`1\mathrm{G}\mathrm{e}\mathrm{V}`$, and the power-law fit of their photon spectrum is given by $`\frac{dn}{d\epsilon }7.4\times 10^6\mathrm{photons}(\mathrm{cm}\mathrm{s}\mathrm{MeV})^1(\epsilon /147\mathrm{M}\mathrm{e}\mathrm{V})^{2.07\pm 0.36}`$ (Sommer et al. 1994). In the last subsection, we have found that the inverse Compton emission intensity from the reverse shock is $`f_\nu ^{rs,IC}2.7\times 10^9\mathrm{erg}\mathrm{cm}^2\mathrm{s}^1\mathrm{MeV}^1(\epsilon /100\mathrm{M}\mathrm{e}\mathrm{V})^{0.75}E_{53}^{4/3}`$ for $`\epsilon <h\nu _c^{rs,IC}`$ and $`f_\nu ^{rs,IC}2.7\times 10^9\mathrm{erg}\mathrm{cm}^2\mathrm{s}^1\mathrm{MeV}^1(\epsilon /100\mathrm{MeV})^{1.25}E_{53}^{2/3}`$ for $`\epsilon >h\nu _c^{rs,IC}`$ with $`p=2.5`$, that is, the differential photon flux is $`\frac{dn}{d\epsilon }6.0\times 10^6\mathrm{photons}(\mathrm{cm}\mathrm{s}\mathrm{MeV})^1(\epsilon /147\mathrm{M}\mathrm{e}\mathrm{V})^{2.25}E_{53}^{2/3}`$. Thus, if the fireball shock energy $`E1.5\times 10^{53}\mathrm{erg}`$ and other parameters such as $`\xi _e`$, $`\xi _B`$, $`\eta `$, $`z`$ and the number density $`n`$ of the surrounding medium take the above representative values, then both the flux level and the spectrum agree well with the observations. However, since this emission process lasts only a time comparable to the crossing time of the reverse shock, it cannot explain the delayed high energy gamma-ray emission, as observed from GRB940217, which may, for example, be due to deflections of ultra high energy cosmic rays accelerated in the GRB fireballs by the intergalactic field (see Waxman & Coppi 1996).

### 2.4 Comparision with the high energy gamma-ray emission flux from the forward shock

For completeness, we also compute the high energy gamma-ray emission flux from the synchrotron and self-Compton process in the forward shock, and compare them with that from the reverse shock. The peak flux of the forward shock is

$$f_m^{fs}=8\mathrm{m}\mathrm{J}\mathrm{y}h_{65}^2(\frac{\sqrt{2}1}{\sqrt{1+z}1})^2(\frac{\xi _B}{0.01})^{1/2}E_{53}n_0^{1/2}$$
(13)
(Waxman 1997b; Wijers & Galama 1999), and the two break frequencies $`\nu _m^{fs}`$ and $`\nu _c^{fs}`$ are given by Eq.(5) and Eq.(7). Please note that here the flux peaks at $`\nu _c^{fs}`$. For typical parameter values of GRBs, during the prompt phase the forward shock is in the fast cooling regime, and we get the high energy flux at those three representative frequencies:

$`f^{fs}(\epsilon =5\mathrm{M}\mathrm{e}\mathrm{V})=1.2\times 10^8\mathrm{erg}\mathrm{cm}^2\mathrm{s}^1\mathrm{MeV}^1E_{53};`$
$`f^{fs}(\epsilon =100\mathrm{M}\mathrm{e}\mathrm{V})=2.5\times 10^{10}\mathrm{erg}\mathrm{cm}^2\mathrm{s}^1\mathrm{MeV}^1E_{53};`$
$`f^{fs}(\epsilon =1\mathrm{G}\mathrm{e}\mathrm{V})=1.4\times 10^{11}\mathrm{erg}\mathrm{cm}^2\mathrm{s}^1\mathrm{MeV}^1E_{53}.`$ (14)
We can see that the flux at $`5\mathrm{M}\mathrm{e}\mathrm{V}`$ is comparable to the inverse Compton component of the reverse shock, while at higher energies ($`>100\mathrm{M}\mathrm{e}\mathrm{V}`$) it is about one order of magnitude lower. As in the reverse shock, we also need consider the synchrotron self-Compton emission process in the forward shock, since the typical energy of the synchrotron photon in the rest frame of the scattering electrons is of the order of $`(h\nu _c^{fs})_{com}\gamma _em_ec^2`$, which is still in the Thomson limit range. At the deceleration time ($`t_{obs}t_{dec}`$), the characteristic break frequencies of the inverse Component of the forward shock are

$$\nu _m^{fs,IC}=2(\gamma _m^{fs})^2\nu _m^{fs}=8.0\times 10^{30}\mathrm{Hz}(\frac{\xi _e}{0.3})^4(\frac{\xi _B}{0.01})^{1/2}\eta _{300}^6n_{0}^{}{}_{}{}^{1/2}(\frac{2.0}{1+z})$$
(15)
and

$$\nu _c^{fs,IC}=2(\gamma _c^{fs})^2\nu _c^{fs}=5.0\times 10^{22}\mathrm{Hz}(\frac{\xi _B}{0.01})^{7/2}\eta _{300}^{2/3}n_0^{13/6}E_{53}^{4/3}(\frac{2}{1+z}).$$
(16)
The peak flux of this inverse Compton component is

$$f_m^{fs,IC}=\tau _e^{fs}f_m^{fs}\sigma _Tnrf_m^{fs}=3\times 10^{13}\mathrm{erg}\mathrm{cm}^2\mathrm{s}^1\mathrm{MeV}^1(\frac{r}{r_{dec}})E_{53}(\frac{\xi _B}{0.01})^{1/2}n_0^{3/2}.$$
(17)
Therefore the inverse Compton flux from the forward shock at $`\epsilon 250\mathrm{M}\mathrm{e}\mathrm{V}`$ band is $`3\times 10^{13}\mathrm{erg}\mathrm{cm}^2\mathrm{s}^1\mathrm{MeV}^1`$, much lower than that from the reverse shock. They are comparable only at $`\epsilon 10\mathrm{T}\mathrm{e}\mathrm{V}`$ band. So, we conclude that for the typical parameter values of the shock and the surrounding medium, the synchrotron self-Compton emission from the reverse shock dominates over the synchrotron and synchrotron self-Compton emissions from the forward shock at high energy gamma-ray bands. Our result is different from that of Dermer et al. (2000), who argue that the synchrotron self-Compton emission from the forward shock may be responsible for the prompt and delayed high energy gamma-ray emission. The key point of the difference is that they considered a rather dense circumburst medium with number density $`n100\mathrm{c}\mathrm{m}^3`$, while we consider a typical interstellar medium with $`n1\mathrm{c}\mathrm{m}^3`$.

## 3  Summary and Discussion

The detection of the prompt optical flash and the radio flare from GRB990123 has given positive evidence for the reverse shock model. In this paper, we calculated analytically the synchrotron self-Compton emission from the reverse shock. Assumed favorable parameter values for the fireball shock and the density of the interstellar medium to be $`\xi _e=0.3`$, $`\xi _B=0.01`$, $`E_{53}=1`$, $`p=2.5`$, $`\eta =300`$ and $`n=1\mathrm{c}\mathrm{m}^3`$, the result shows that during the prompt phase, this emission dominates over the emission due to other processes of the shocked electrons in both the forward and reverse external shocks at high energy gamma-ray bands. We suggest that this process provides a new explanation for the prompt high energy gamma rays detected by EGRET from some bright bursts, such as GRB930131, GRB910503 and GRB940217 etc. As an example, we compared our calculated result with the observations of GRB930131 and found that both the flux level and spectrum agree quite well, provided the initial fireball shock energy is a few times $`10^{53}\mathrm{erg}`$, which is consistent with the fact that all the bursts detected by EGRET are bright bursts in the BATSE range. We also derived the decaying light curves of the inverse Compton component and found that it decays quite rapidly, regardless whether the observed band locates above or below the cooling break frequency of the inverse Compton component. This unique feature can act as a test of our model if in the future GLAST is capable of describing the time evolution of the high energy gamma-ray flux. Because once the reverse shock has crossed that ejecta, all electrons cool by adiabatic expansion and no fresh electrons are accelerated, our model can not explain the delayed $`\mathrm{GeV}`$ emission, as observed from GRB940217.

GRBs are generally believed to be produced by the internal collisions between the relativistic shells at a radius $`r10^{12}10^{13}\mathrm{cm}`$, which is much smaller than the distance at which the external shock takes place. Till now, the mechanism of prompt GRB emission is not as well-understood as that of afterglows and we do not know whether the usual GRBs and high energy gamma-rays have a common origin . If we here take a naive assumption that the internal shock emission extends from BATSE band to GeV bands with $`f_\nu \nu ^{p/2}`$, the simple extrapolation gives a flux of $`f_\nu (\epsilon =100\mathrm{M}\mathrm{e}\mathrm{V})1.0\times 10^8\mathrm{erg}\mathrm{cm}^2\mathrm{s}^1\mathrm{MeV}^1`$ for typical GRB fluence of $`F_\gamma (20\mathrm{KeV}2\mathrm{MeV})10^5\mathrm{erg}\mathrm{cm}^2`$. This flux at $`\epsilon =100\mathrm{`}\mathrm{MeV}`$ is comparable to that from the reverse shock. However, this simple extrapolation may be incorrect if there is a sharp cutoff at some high energy band, as shown in the model of Ghisellini & Celotti (1999), in which the prompt GRB emission is due to quasi-thermal comptonization process in internal shocks and ends with an exponential cutoff at energies higher than a few MeV.

In all our calculation, we considered a fireball shock expanding into a uniform interstellar medium with constant density of $`n1\mathrm{c}\mathrm{m}^3`$. The observations of some afterglows have shown that some GRBs may occur in a stellar wind environment (Dai & Lu 1998; Chevalier & Li 1999), implying the massive star origin of these bursts (Woosley 1993; Paczyński 1998). As having been pointed out in Chevalier & Li (2000) and Dai & Lu (2000), the peak flux of the reverse shock formed by the initial interaction between the fireball ejecta with the stellar wind medium is significantly lower than that in the case of the interstellar medium for similar shock parameters . For this reason, we conjecture that the high energy gamma-ray emission in this kind of reverse shock is too weak to be detected by high energy gamma-ray detectors.

X.Y.Wang would like to thank Dr D. M. Wei and Z. Li for valuable discussions. This work was supported by the National Natural Science Foundation of China under grants 19773007, 19973003 and 19825109 and the Foundation of the Ministry of Education of China.


text:
# Quantum numbers of the V3+ ion in V2O3

## Abstract

It is argued that the V3+ ion in V2O3 should be considered as described by quantum numbers S=1 and L=3. It results from Hund’s rules and means that the two d electrons form the highly-correlated electron system with the importance of the intra-atomic spin-orbit coupling.

Keywords: highly-correlated electron system, crystal field, V3+ ion, spin-orbit coupling, Mott insulators

PACS: 71.70.E, 75.10.D, 75.30.Gw

Receipt date by Phys.Rev.Lett. 18.09.2000

(19.09.2000)

V2O3 attracts the substantial scientific interest by more than 50 years. Despite of it there is still strong discussion about the description of its properties and its electronic structure. There is a long-standing controversy between an S=1 model without an orbital degeneracy  and the S=1/2 orbitally degenerate model of Castellani et al. .

Recently a new ”orbitally degenerate spin-1 model for the insulating V2O3” has been proposed in Ref. 3.

In all of these considerations it is agreed that V2O3 is antifferomagnet with the Neel temperature of 160 K. It has the corundum Al2O3 structure. It is agreed that V ions in the corundum structure sit in an O octahedron with a small trigonal distortion. It is also agreed that the V3+ ion has two d electrons \[1-3\]. The base for all theories is the description of the V3+ ion and its electronic structure.

The aim of this Letter is to point out that the V3+ ion in V2O3 should be described by the quantum numbers S=1 and L=3. It follows from the Hund’s rules (two i.e. the maximal S and maximal L for two d electrons) .

We understand that Hund’s rules are phenomelogical rules but they are well-established in physics. They reflect intra-atomic interactions. Thus, the demand for keeping the Hund rules is equivalent to an idea that atoms preserve their internal atomic structure being the part of a solid. The V3+ ion has the 3d2 configuration. It means that these two electrons form the highly-correlated electronic system described by the resultant quantum numbers S=1 and L=3.

The electronic structure in the octahedral crystal field and in the presence of the intra-atomic spin-orbit coupling has been calculated by us in Ref. 5.

In conclusion, we claim that the V3+ ion in V2O3 should be considered as described by the quantum numbers S=1 nad L=3. We are convinced that taking into account the orbital moment and the intra-atomic spin-orbit coupling is indispensable for the description of electronic and magnetic properties of V2O3.

Email for correspondence: sfradwan@cyf-kr.edu.pl