text:
# References

The cosmological constant problem has been the most severe hierarchy problem for fundamental physics. In a local quantum field theory, the cosmological constant, or vacuum energy density, receives divergent quantum contributions from zero point energies of virtual field theory degrees of freedom. The divergence is expected to be controlled by high-energy short distance physics at an ultraviolet scale $`M\mathrm{}/\delta `$, such as the Planck or supersymmetry breaking scale, $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_D\mathrm{}/\delta ^D`$, where $`D`$ is the number of space-time dimensions. The relatively slow expansion of the universe, however, implies that the cosmological constant is very much smaller, $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_4\stackrel{<}{}\mathrm{meV}/(100\mu \mathrm{m})^3`$.

A complete formulation of quantum gravity with which to address the cosmological constant problem is not yet available. However, the Bekenstein bound on the entropy of a space-like region  follows from the thermodynamic properties of large black holes , and is likely to be a feature of any theory; $`SA_{D2}/(4G_D\mathrm{})`$, where $`G_D`$ is the $`D`$-dimensional Newton constant, and $`A_{D2}`$ is the area bounding any region which satisfies the space-like projection theorem . This bound led ’t Hooft  and Susskind  to propose the holographic principle in which the number of independent degrees of freedom, equivalent to the maximum entropy, is also subject to the Bekenstein bound

$$N_{\mathrm{dof}}A_{D2}/(4G_D\mathrm{})$$
(1)
The number of degrees of freedom within a region satisfying the space-like projection theorem is then finite and extensive in the bounding area  rather than the volume. A local quantum field theory description of gravity, with a divergent number of volume extensive degrees of freedom, is clearly inconsistent with holography. The volume divergent local field theory estimate given above for the quantum vacuum energy is then unlikely to be correct since the states required to give this result do not exist in a holographic theory of gravity.

In this letter it is argued that holography renders the cosmological constant stable against divergent quantum corrections, and allows only finite corrections, thereby providing a technically natural solution to the cosmological constant problem. As discussed below, this follows first from the holographic reduction in the number of independent degrees of freedom, and second from the holographic energy per degree of freedom. A natural solution can then follow from a symmetry of the action. Previous discussions of holography have attempted to relate the cosmological constant to supersymmetry breaking , to correlated infrared and ultraviolet cutoffs in an effective field theory , and to a probabilistic interpretation of large entropy static universes .

The emergence of small scale local physics from a general holographic description is an open problem and will not be addressed here.

Holographic Vacuum Energy— The local field theory estimate of quantum vacuum energy involves degrees of freedom with density determined by the ultraviolet scale $`M`$. However, the actual volume density of non-redundant holographic degrees of freedom (1) is determined by an infrared scale related to the bounding area. Quantum corrections to the vacuum energy of a low curvature space-time background from these non-redundant degrees of freedom must therefore involve an infrared scale. The magnitude of the corrections depends not only on the the number of degrees of freedom but also the quantum energy per degree of freedom. Parametric estimates employing non-redundant degrees of freedom for a number of holographic descriptions including non-local bulk descriptions, virtual black holes, holographic screens, and conformal field theory descriptions of anti-de Sitter spaces are detailed below. In all cases holographic quantum corrections to the vacuum energy density result in only a finite shift of the classical value, and parametrically do not destabilize the background geometry.

Bulk Holography— Any holographic description of gravity in terms of local bulk fields should be invested with a holographic gauge symmetry  which eliminates redundant volume extensive degrees of freedom. An explicit Faddeev-Popov procedure for eliminating redundant degrees of freedom in a general setting is not yet available. However, gauge invariant or gauge fixed descriptions may exist in which the non-redundant degrees of freedom are manifest. For a generic background, the largest space-like regions which obey the holographic bound (1) are generally of order the background curvature scale \[the special case of anti-de Sitter space in which all regions satisfy the space-like projection theorem is discussed below\]. In a gauge appropriate to calculating a global quantum effect on the background geometry, it is then natural to postulate that uniformly volume distributed bulk holographic degrees of freedom are delocalized on the scale of the background radius of curvature, $`R`$, since this is the relevant holographic length scale.

The Heisenberg quantum energy of each delocalized holographic degree of freedom is $`E_{\mathrm{dof}}\mathrm{}/R`$. The quantum contribution to the global vacuum energy density, $`\delta \mathrm{\Lambda }_DN_{\mathrm{dof}}E_{\mathrm{dof}}/R^{D1}`$, with $`A_{D2}R^{D2}`$, is then

$$\delta \mathrm{\Lambda }_D\stackrel{<}{}1/(G_DR^2)$$
(2)
Since the factors of $`\mathrm{}`$ cancel in the product $`N_{\mathrm{dof}}E_{\mathrm{dof}}`$, this shift should appear as a classical bulk effect. Einstein’s equation for the classical background relates the background energy density and radius of curvature by $`\rho 1/(G_DR^2)`$. So holographic quantum contributions to the vacuum energy are parametrically at most of order the background energy density. Note that the postulate of delocalized bulk holographic degrees of freedom implies that quantum contributions to the vacuum energy satisfy the gravitational mass bound $`N_{\mathrm{dof}}E_{\mathrm{dof}}\stackrel{<}{}R^{D3}/G_D`$.

It has been suggested that quantum contributions to certain quantities, specifically in de Sitter space, are dominated by large virtual black holes at the curvature scale of the background geometry . This may occur in thermodynamic averages which are entropy dominated by large black holes, or because virtual contributions at super-Planckian energies are dominated by massive black holes . If a gauge fixing of the bulk holographic gauge symmetry does in fact exist in which this is an appropriate alternate description, it is clear that large virtual black holes at the background curvature scale, with entropy that saturates the bound (1), energy $`ER^{D3}/G_D`$, and volume $`R^{D1}`$, contribute to the vacuum energy density parametrically by the same estimate (2) given above.

Holographic Screens— Since the number of holographic degrees of freedom in regions satisfying the space-like projection theorem are limited by the bounding area, in many circumstances there may be a gauge fixing of the holographic gauge symmetry in which the non-redundant degrees of freedom can be localized on $`D2`$ dimensional holographic screens .

For definiteness consider the case of an expanding spatially flat Friedman-Robertson-Walker cosmology with Hubble parameter $`H`$ and line element

$$ds^2=(1r^2H^2)dt^2+2rHdrdtdr^2r^2d\mathrm{\Omega }_{D2}^2$$
(3)
The apparent horizon, at a distance $`r=1/H`$ from any observer, forms a preferred screen which encodes the entire space-time  or the normal space-like region within the horizon. The holographic bound (1) implies that the area density of non-redundant degrees of freedom on the screen is limited by the Planck density, $`N_{\mathrm{dof}}/A_{D2}1/(4\mathrm{}_P^{D2})`$ where $`\mathrm{}_P=(G_D\mathrm{})^{1/(D2)}`$. The Heisenberg quantum energy of each screen degree of freedom is then limited by $`E_{\mathrm{dof}}\stackrel{<}{}\mathrm{}/\mathrm{}_P`$, and the total quantum energy of the screen is limited by $`N_{\mathrm{dof}}E_{\mathrm{dof}}\stackrel{<}{}R^{D2}/(G_D\mathrm{}_P)`$, where here $`R=1/H`$. The precise procedure for projection of screen energy into the bulk is not known, but parametrically should involve a screen–bulk redshift factor. The apparent horizon is a surface of infinite redshift, so a regulated screen must be employed. The area density and energy limits above imply that the Planck length and energy may be taken as limiting cutoffs for local screen degrees of freedom. So a stretched screen one Planck distance inside the apparent horizon in the screen frame is appropriate, in analogy with the stretched horizon of a black hole . The stretched screen–bulk inverse redshift factor, $`\sqrt{g_{00}}\sqrt{2}\mathrm{}_P/R`$, then gives a bulk quantum energy of $`E\stackrel{<}{}R^{D3}/G_D`$. Averaged over the enclosed volume, $`R^{D1}`$, this gives a shift of the vacuum energy density identical to the estimate (2) given above. This applies to other space-times with apparent horizon preferred screens obtained by space-like projection  such as de Sitter space.

Conformal Field Theory Description of Anti-de Sitter Space— The best understood example of holography is the duality between $`D`$-dimensional anti-de Sitter space and a $`D1`$ dimensional boundary conformal field theory . The description of IIB superstring theory or supergravity in an $`AdS_5\times S^5`$ background, or the consistent truncation to $`𝒩=8`$ gauged supergravity in $`AdS_5`$, in terms of an $`𝒩=4`$ supersymmetric $`SU(N)`$ boundary gauge theory with both large $`N`$ and $`g^2N`$ provides a number of non-trivial checks of this duality . This includes an infrared–ultraviolet duality between the bulk and boundary descriptions which implies a holographic bound (1) on lattice regulated conformal field theory degrees of freedom within space-like regions large compared to the anti-de Sitter radius .

The dual conformal field theory description of anti-de Sitter space may be thought of as a gauge fixing of the presumed holographic gauge symmetry in terms of non-redundant degrees of freedom. The conformal field theory energy-momentum tensor acts as a source for the bulk metric. Quantum vacuum energy could be addressed by a duality with a non-supersymmetric boundary conformal field theory, in which zero point energies do not cancel. A purely non-supersymmetric example of this type is not yet know, but should exist if large non-supersymmetric anti-de Sitter spaces are consistent backgrounds in a quantum theory of gravity.

Quantum contributions to anti de-Sitter space vacuum energy can be estimated parametrically from the holographic properties of the duality. The anti-de Sitter line element near the asymptotic boundary, $`y0`$, is

$$ds^2(R^2/y^2)(dt^2dy^2R^2d\mathrm{\Omega }_{D2}^2)$$
(4)
with $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_D=(D1)(D2)/(16\pi G_DR^2)`$. Spatial sections of the boundary theory are defined on $`S^{D2}`$ with radius $`R`$. In order to regulate the divergent vacuum energy of a non-supersymmetric boundary theory, it is convenient to employ block spin renormalization in which the theory is defined on an infinite family of spatial lattices labeled by a renormalization step $`n𝐙`$, with lattice spacings related by $`\delta _{n+1}=\delta _n/2`$. The Heisenberg energy per lattice degree of freedom is $`E_{\mathrm{dof}}\mathrm{}/\delta _n`$. The boundary theory vacuum energy density at renormalization step $`n`$ is then $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{D1;n}N_{\mathrm{dof}}E_{\mathrm{dof}}/\delta _n^{D2}\mathrm{}N_{\mathrm{dof}}/\delta _n^{D1}`$ where here $`N_{\mathrm{dof}}c`$ is the effective number of boundary degrees of freedom per lattice site, and $`c`$ is the central charge. The boundary theory vacuum energy density is ultraviolet divergent for $`n\mathrm{}`$.

Scale–radius duality implies that a lattice scale $`\delta _n`$ corresponds to a radial $`y`$ coordinate of $`y\delta _n`$ . The bulk proper area covered by a lattice at renormalization step $`n`$ is then $`A_{D2;n}(\sqrt{h_{ii}}R)^{D2}(R^2/\delta _n)^{D2}`$, where $`h_{ii}R^2/y^2`$ is the bulk transverse spatial metric for $`y\delta _nR`$. Lattices which differ by one renormalization step are separated by a proper bulk radial distance of $`\mathrm{\Delta }r_{\delta _n}^{\delta _n/2}\sqrt{g_{yy}}𝑑y=(\mathrm{ln}2)R`$. The contribution to the bulk energy density of any given lattice is then spread over this radial distance, and the bulk volume covered by this lattice is $`V_nA_{D1;n}\mathrm{\Delta }r(R^2/\delta _n)^{D2}R`$. Now the boundary total quantum energy of the lattice at renormalization step $`n`$ is $`\stackrel{~}{E}_n\mathrm{\Lambda }_{D1;n}R^{D2}`$, and the associated proper bulk energy is $`E_n\stackrel{~}{E}_n/\sqrt{g_{00}}\stackrel{~}{E}_n\delta _n/R`$ where $`g_{00}R^2/y^2`$. So the quantum shift of the proper bulk cosmological constant $`\delta \mathrm{\Lambda }_DE_n/V_n`$ is

$$\delta \mathrm{\Lambda }_D\mathrm{\Lambda }_{D1;n}/\left(\sqrt{g_{00}}(\sqrt{h_{ii}})^{D2}R\right)\mathrm{}N_{\mathrm{dof}}/R^D$$
(5)
independent of $`n`$. The boundary theory divergent $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{D1}`$ is therefore distributed along the bulk radial direction as a constant finite shift, $`\delta \mathrm{\Lambda }_D`$, of the bulk cosmological constant. Any consistent duality must satisfy the holographic bound (1), which implies that the shift in bulk cosmological constant (5) is identical to the estimate (2) given above. Note that since the bulk proper lattice spacing and Heisenberg energy per degree of freedom are both determined by $`R`$, the boundary theory degrees of freedom are effectively delocalized on the scale of the background curvature, as conjectured above for the general case of bulk holographic degrees of freedom.

Certain non-supersymmetric boundary theories can be obtained by a relevant perturbation of an ultraviolet supersymmetric conformal field theory . In anti-de Sitter space the relevant operator corresponds to a closed $`S^{D2}`$ domain wall which separates an exterior region associated to the ultraviolet supersymmetric theory from an interior region associated to the infrared non-supersymmetric theory. In this case the divergent quantum vacuum energy of the infrared boundary theory, $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{D1}`$, corresponds to a finite classical auxiliary expectation value which breaks supersymmetry in the interior anti-de Sitter region . The relevant operator cuts off the divergence in the boundary theory, and the auxiliary expectation value vanishes in the exterior anti-de Sitter region.

For any duality of the type discussed above, the central charge of the boundary conformal field theory is related, at least for $`D`$ odd, to the anti-de Sitter space radius. For definiteness consider $`D=5`$ for which $`R=(8cG_5\mathrm{}/\pi )^{1/3}`$  or $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_5=(3/4)/(64\pi c^2G_5^5\mathrm{}^2)^{1/3}`$. In this case the boundary central charge, and therefore the bulk cosmological constant, is modified with respect to the classical free field value by quantum anomalous dimensions of the boundary fields. In this language a finite shift $`\delta \mathrm{\Lambda }_5`$ due to boundary quantum effects is qualitatively independent of whether the boundary conformal field theory is supersymmetric with vanishing boundary vacuum energy, $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_4=0`$, or non-supersymmetric with divergent $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_4`$.

The Cosmological Constant Problem — Any hierarchy problem has two aspects. The first is technical naturalness associated with stability of the small or vanishing parameter characterizing the hierarchy. This generally follows from a symmetry principle which forbids naive corrections that could destabilize the hierarchy. In all the holographic descriptions given above, the implicit holographic gauge symmetry is responsible for quantum stability of the vacuum energy since it removes redundant volume extensive degrees of freedom that naively would give an ultraviolet divergent contribution. Both the number and Heisenberg energy of the non-redundant holographic degrees of freedom are controlled by the infrared scale set by the background curvature. This should arise as a general feature in any holographic theory of gravity. Even though the cosmological constant is a relevant operator from the local bulk point of view, holographic gauge symmetry protects it from divergent corrections, and renders it stable against small changes in ultraviolet parameters. Holography provides a technically natural solution to the cosmological constant problem.

The second aspect of any hierarchy problem, which may be addressed once a technically natural solution is understood, is the natural value of the small or vanishing parameter. With any technically natural hierarchy it is possible simply to take the small parameter as input, without specifying an underlying natural mechanism for its value. In the present context this amounts to taking the number of holographic degrees of freedom as input, at least for static universes.

A naturally vanishing cosmological constant could follow from an exact symmetry of the full theory. As long as the symmetry commutes with holographic gauge symmetry the local bulk action should be invariant, even without implementing a Faddeev-Popov procedure to remove redundant degrees of freedom. The local scalar potential in general relativity may be written as

$$V(\varphi )=(D2)D_iWg^{ij}D_jW8\pi G_D(D1)W^2$$
(6)
where $`W=W(\varphi _i)`$ is an arbitrary pre-potential function, $`g^{ij}`$ is the inverse field space metric, and $`D_i`$ is a field space covariant derivative. The general form (6) follows from perturbative stability of anti-de Sitter space solutions , exact stability with a single scalar , or directly from Einstein’s equations in certain ansatz. If $`V`$ is invariant but $`W`$ transforms under an exact symmetry, and all the scalars transform under additional exact symmetries, Schur’s Lemma ensures that both $`D_iW(0)=0`$ and $`W(0)=0`$. The symmetries may be continuous or discrete, either global or gauged. The origin of field space, $`\varphi _i=0`$, is then an enhanced symmetry extremum with vanishing potential, $`V(0)=0`$. Given that Lorentz scalars which break electroweak and quark chiral symmetries are non-zero in the vacuum, this option may not be applicable to our universe.

Another possibility for a naturally vanishing cosmological constant is the existence of an exact symmetry which enforces a relation between $`D_iW`$ and $`W`$ in (6) such that $`V=0`$. This is applicable to supergravity and superstring theories in $`D=4`$ with spontaneously broken $`𝒩=1`$ supersymmetry which requires $`D_iW0`$. Classical non-compact symmetries of this type exist in no-scale supergravity models . Dimensional reduction of superstring theories with a non-vanishing superpotential from, for example, race-track stabilized gaugino condensation, can give rise to no-scale symmetries for moduli either from a classical scale invariance  or inheritance from extended supersymmetries of the underlying theory. These symmetries are generically broken in the four dimensional quantum local potential, but might be recovered at points on moduli space.

Another possibility is that a manifestly holographic or boundary description has an instability which is spontaneously stabilized by a finite number of holographic degrees of freedom in the ground state. If the number of spontaneous degrees of freedom is divergent, then flat space appears naturally.

For any input or natural explanation of the cosmological constant hierarchy, holography renders the cosmological constant stable and a small or vanishing value technically natural.

Cosmology— Holographic contributions to the vacuum energy can have important implications for cosmology. In all the holographic descriptions given above, the quantum vacuum energy density is parametrically limited to be at most of order the background energy density. In an expanding universe this implies that quantum corrections to the stress-energy tensor at any epoch are at most of order the energy density of the dominant matter component at that epoch . This is natural since the infrared holographic length scale is determined by the holographic screen on the apparent horizon.

Conclusions— The holographic interpretation  of the Bekenstein bound  implies that the number of degrees of freedom and Hilbert space dimensionality of a gravitating system is finite. Local field theory, even for example (super)string or M-theory interpreted as a local field theory below the Planck or string scale, can not be a fundamental description, and is likely to break down for processes which nearly saturate the Bekenstein bound. This is certainly true for real processes which involve excited degrees of freedom, but as advocated here, should also be true for virtual effects such as quantum contributions to the vacuum energy or equation of state of an expanding universe. It is precisely for such effects that holographic gauge symmetry, absent in a bulk local field theory description, becomes important since these effects necessarily involve all the available non-redundant virtual degrees of freedom. The most challenging problem for a holographic theory of gravity may not be the cosmological constant problem, but rather how local small scale physics arises from a holographic description.

I would like to thank M. Dine, L. Dixon, M. Peskin, S. Shenker, and L. Susskind for useful discussions. This work was supported by the US National Science Foundation under grant PHY98-70115, the Alfred P. Sloan Foundation, and Stanford University through the Frederick E. Terman Fellowship.


format: text

text:
# The EMSS Radio Loud Quasar Sample

## 1. Introduction

To understand a population properties it is crucial to disentangle the intrinsic features from the selection induced ones. To this aim it is necessary to compare the characteristics of sources selected in different spectral bands. We have therefore considered radio–loud quasars – which so far have been extracted from radio surveys – and studied an X–ray selected sample. We are mainly interested in determining whether the relation between the Spectral Energy Distribution (SED) and the source power proposed by Ghisellini et al. (1998) and Fossati et al. (1998) – a blazar sequence from High-peaked BL Lacs (HBL), to Low-peaked BL Lacs (LBL) to Flat Spectrum Radio quasars (FSRQ) – holds also for fainter X-ray selected quasars. The trend in the SED can be physically accounted for by an increase in the external radiation field along the sequence.

## 2. The sample

The sample under study comprises the radio–loud quasars detected in the Einstein Medium Sensitivity Survey (EMSS; Gioia et al. 1990; Stocke et al. 1991). It is the first statistically complete X–ray selected sample of (39) radio–loud quasars. Details can be found in Wolter & Celotti (2000, A&A submitted). The sample is cut at $`\delta 40^{}`$, and excludes narrow line objects. We dub the sample the EMSS Radio Loud quasar sample (ERL). We divide the sample in flat (FS) and steep (SS) spectrum radio–loud objects ($`F_\nu \nu ^\alpha `$). The distribution of $`\alpha _r`$ is not bimodal and therefore the choice of a dividing value is somewhat arbitrary. We formally consider it at $`\alpha _r`$=0.7.

## 3. Broad band properties

We study the luminosities in the radio, optical and X–ray bands ($`L_r`$, $`L_o`$, $`L_x`$) and the corresponding broad band spectral indices ($`\alpha _{ro}`$, $`\alpha _{ox}`$, $`\alpha _{rx}`$). Through X–ray selection we detect objects with a rather limited range in optical luminosity, but a large span in the radio one, extending the range of sampled $`L_r`$ towards fainter sources compared to radio–selected quasars.

The radio and X-ray luminosities seem to be correlated at the 99% level even taking into account the common redshift dependence. No differences are found between the distributions of FS and SS, neither in luminosities (KS probability $`p20\%`$) nor in broad band spectral indices ($`p47\%`$) nor in the trends, suggesting a behavior of the compact beamed component independent of the large scale radio flux dominance.

The shape of the SED appears to be related to the radio luminosity: in fact, the only statistically significant trends found are between $`\alpha _{ro}`$, $`\alpha _{rx}`$ and $`L_r`$, consistent with being caused by a change in the synchrotron peak energy: the flatter is $`\alpha _{ro}`$, the higher is the peak energy.

## 4. Comparison with other samples

In Fig. 1a we show the ERL and samples of both FSRQ and radio and X–ray selected BL Lacs. The ERL occupy the transition region (in the “boomerang” shaped blazar distribution) between FSRQ and X–ray selected ($``$ HBL) BL Lac objects, roughly overlapping with radio–selected ($``$ LBL) ones. Note that the location of LBL and FSRQ in the spectral index plane is due to the dominance in the X–ray band of a flat Compton component.

Even the X–ray selection is unable to detect radio–loud quasars with high peaked synchrotron components, albeit sampling sources with $`L_r`$ comparable to that of HBL (see Fig. 1b). These findings are therefore in global agreement with the expectation of the blazars sequence scenario, thus re-enforcing the view of a strong connection between the SED and the radio luminosity.

We propose that the concentration of ERL in the LBL region could be at least in part ascribed to the increasing dominance of a quasi–thermal optically–UV component (blue bump) in quasars of increasingly lower (non–thermal) radio power. Indeed the typical $`\alpha _{ro}`$ and $`\alpha _{rx}`$ of the low radio power ERL corresponds to SED whose peak is located in the optical–UV region. The presence of such a component would flatten $`\alpha _{ro}`$ and steepen $`\alpha _{rx}`$ in sources with decreasing non–thermal continuum. Optical and X–ray spectra will be able to verify such hypothesis.

## 5. LogN-logS, Evolution, and Luminosity Functions

We plot the number counts of FS and SS sources in Fig. 2a. There is marginal evidence (though over the whole range in flux) for flatter counts of FS (see Table 1.) The count distributions of FS is in complete agreement with what found for all AGN – mostly radio quiet– in the EMSS ($`1.61\pm 0.06`$, Della Ceca et al. 1992); SS and all ERL counts are marginally steeper (at 1 $`\sigma `$ level) than all AGN, possibly indicating larger amount of evolution.

The most interesting aspect is the extension to a factor 100 lower fluxes provided by the X–ray selection. At radio fluxes of a few tens of mJy (which corresponds for an average SED to $`10^{13}\mathrm{erg}\mathrm{cm}^2\mathrm{s}^1`$) the radio counts of X–ray selected objects are marginally consistent with the Euclidean extrapolation from higher fluxes and thus largely exceed (factor $`>`$10 for FS and $``$3 for SS) those predicted by the beaming model, which drop below $``$ 0.1 Jy (Padovani & Urry 1992). The EMSS BL Lac distribution (see Fig. 2a) is flatter, dominating by a factor $`10`$ at $`10^{12}\mathrm{erg}\mathrm{cm}^2\mathrm{s}^1`$, and an ‘inversion’ of the two populations occurs just above $``$3 $`\times 10^{13}\mathrm{erg}\mathrm{cm}^2\mathrm{s}^1`$.

We have studied the cosmological evolution by applying the Ve/Va test (Avni & Bachall, 1980) - see Table 1. The derived evolution rate for ERL and FS is consistent with the total EMSS AGN sample (Della Ceca et al. 1992). SS require a slightly higher value for the evolution parameter. The differential luminosity functions are plotted in Fig. 2b as observed, and de-evolved at z=0. Derived slopes are in Table 1.

### Acknowledgments.

This work has received partial finantial support from the Italian MURST under grant COFIN98-02-32.

## References

Avni, Y. & Bachall, J.N., 1980, ApJ, 235, 694.

Della Ceca R. et al., 1992, ApJ, 389, 491.

Fossati, G. et al., 1998, MNRAS, 299, 433.

Ghisellini, G. et al., 1998, MNRAS, 301, 451.

Gioia, I.M. et al., 1990, ApJS, 72, 567.

Laurent-Muehleisen et al. 1999, ApJ, 525, 127.

Padovani, P. & Urry, M.C., 1992, ApJ, 387, 449.

Perlman E.S., et al., 1998, AJ, 115, 1253.

Stocke, J.T. et al., 1991, ApJS, 76, 813.

Wolter, A. et al., 1991, ApJ, 369, 314.


text:
# Information Theory based on Non-additive Information Content

## I Introduction

The intuitive notion of what a quantitative expression for information should be has been addressed in the development of transmission of information which led to the information theory(IT). The IT today is considered to be the most fundamental field which connects other various fields such as physics (thermodynamics), electrical engineering (communication theory), mathematics (probability theory and statistics), computer science (Kolmogorov complexity) and so on. Accordingly, the selection of the information measure becomes a influential matter. The introduction of logarithmic form of information measure dates back to Hartley. He defined the practical measure of information as the logarithm of the number of possible symbol sequences. After that, Shannon established the logarithmic based IT from the reasons: (a) practical usefulness, (b) closeness to our intuitive feeling, (c) easiness of mathematical manipulation.

On the other hand, however, non-logarithmic form of (or nonextensive) entropy is currently considered as a useful measure in describing thermostatistical properties of a certain class of physical systems which entail long-range interactions, long-time memories and (multi)fractal structures. The form of the nonextensive entropy proposed by Tsallis has been intensively applied to many such systems. The reason why the formalism violating the extensivity of the statistical mechanical entropy seems to be essential for convincing description of these systems is not sufficiently revealed in the present status. Nevertheless the successful application to some physical systems seems to lead us to investigate into the possibility of the nonadditive IT since Shannon’s information entropy has the same form as the logarithmic statistical mechanical entropy.

It is desirable to employ the nonadditive information content which the associated IT contains Shannon’s IT in a special case. The concept of the form invariance to the structure of nonextensive entropies was considered to provide a guiding principle for a clear basis for generalizations of logarithmic entropy. This structure seems to give a hint at the selection of the nonadditive information content. The form invariant structure require normalization of the original Tsallis entropy by $`_ip_i^q`$, where $`p_i`$ is a probability of event $`i`$ and $`q`$ is a real number residing in the interval $`(0,1)`$ from the preservation of concavity of the entropy. In addition, Kullback-Leibler (KL) relative entropy which measures distance between two probability distribution is also modified.

This paper explores consequences of adopting nonadditive information content in the sense that the associated average information i.e entropy takes a form of the modified Tsallis entropy. The use of modified form of Tsallis entropy is in conformity with the appropriate definitions of expectation value (the normalized $`q`$-expectation value) of the nonadditive information content. Since the information theoretical entropy is defined as the average of information content, it is desirable to unify the meaning of the average as the normalized $`q`$-expectation value throughout the nonadditive IT. Moreover we shall later see how the Shannon’s additive IT is extended to the nonadditive one by addressing the source coding theorem which is the one of the most fundamental theorem in IT.

The organization of this paper is as follows. In Sec.II, we present the mathematical preliminaries of the nonadditive entropy and the generalized KL entropy. Sec.III addresses an optimal code word within the framework of nonadditive context. We shall attempt to give a possible meaning of nonadditive index $`q`$ in terms of codeword length there. Sec.IV deals with the extension of the Fano’s inequality which gives upper bound on the conditional entropy with an error probability in a channel. In the last section, we devote to concluding remarks.

## II Nonadditive entropy and the generalized KL entropy

### A Properties of nonadditive entropy of information

For a discrete set of states with probability mass function $`p(x)`$, where $`x`$ belongs to alphabet $``$, we consider the following nonadditive information content $`I_q(p)`$,

$$I_q(p)\mathrm{ln}_qp(x),$$
(1)
where $`\mathrm{ln}_qx`$ is a $`q`$logarithm function defined as $`\mathrm{ln}_qx=(x^{1q}1)/(1q)`$. In the limit $`q1`$, $`\mathrm{ln}_qx`$ recovers the standard logarithm $`\mathrm{ln}x`$. In Shannon’s additive IT, an information content is expressed as $`\mathrm{ln}p(x)`$ in nat unit, which is monotonically decreasing function with respect to $`p(x)`$. This behavior matches our intuition in that we get more information in the case the least-probable event occurs and less information in the case the event with high probability occurs. It is worth noting that this property is qualitatively valid for nonadditive information content for all $`q`$ except the fact that there exists upper limit $`1/(1q)`$ at $`p(x)=0`$. Therefore the Shannon’s reason (b) we referred in Sec.I is considered to be no crucial element for determining the logarithmic form. Moreover, it is easy to see that the Renyi information of order $`q`$, $`H_q^R=\mathrm{ln}{\displaystyle \underset{x}{}}p^q(x)/(1q)`$, which is additive information measure can be written with this nonadditive information content as

$$H_q^R=\frac{\mathrm{ln}{\displaystyle \underset{x}{}}\left[1(1q)I_q(p(x))\right]^{\frac{q}{1q}}}{1q}.$$
(2)
The entropy $`H_q(X)`$ of a discrete random variable $`X`$ is defined as an average of the information content, where the average means the normalized $`q`$-expectation value ,

$$H_q(X)=\frac{{\displaystyle \underset{x}{}}p^q(x)\mathrm{ln}_qp(x)}{{\displaystyle \underset{x}{}}p^q(x)}=\frac{1{\displaystyle \underset{x}{}}p^q(x)}{(q1){\displaystyle \underset{x}{}}p^q(x)},$$
(3)
where we have used the normalization of probability $`_xp(x)=1`$. In a similar way, we define the nonadditive conditional information content and the joint one as follows

$$I_q(yx)=\frac{p^{1q}(yx)1}{q1},$$
(4)
$$I_q(x,y)=\frac{p^{1q}(x,y)1}{q1},$$
(5)
where $`y`$ belongs to a different alphabet $`𝒴`$. Corresponding entropy conditioned by $`x`$ and the joint entropy of $`X`$ and $`Y`$ becomes

$$H_q(Yx)=\frac{{\displaystyle \underset{y𝒴}{}}p^q(yx)I_q(yx)}{{\displaystyle \underset{y𝒴}{}}p^q(yx)}=\frac{1{\displaystyle \underset{y𝒴}{}}p^q(yx)}{(q1){\displaystyle \underset{y𝒴}{}}p^q(yx)}$$
(6)
and

$$H_q(X,Y)=\frac{{\displaystyle \underset{x,y𝒴}{}}p^q(x,y)I_q(x,y)}{{\displaystyle \underset{x,y𝒴}{}}p^q(x,y)}=\frac{1{\displaystyle \underset{x,y𝒴}{}}p^q(x,y)}{(q1){\displaystyle \underset{x,y𝒴}{}}p^q(x,y)},$$
(7)
respectively. Then we have the following theorem.
Theorem 1.
The joint entropy satisfies

$$H_q(X,Y)=H_q(X)+H_q(YX)+(q1)H_q(X)H_q(YX).$$
(8)
Proof.
From Eq(7) we can rewrite $`H_q(X,Y)`$ with the relation $`p(x,y)=p(x)p(yx)`$ as

$$H_q(X,Y)=\frac{1}{q1}\left[\frac{1}{{\displaystyle \underset{x}{}}p^q(x){\displaystyle \underset{y𝒴}{}}p^q(yx)}1\right].$$
(9)
Since Eq(6) gives $`{\displaystyle \underset{y𝒴}{}}p^q(yx)=\left[1+(q1)H_q(Yx)\right]^1`$, we get

$$H_q(X,Y)=\frac{1}{q1}\left[\frac{1}{{\displaystyle \underset{x}{}}{\displaystyle \frac{p^q(x)}{1+(q1)H_q(Yx)}}}1\right].$$
(10)
Here, we introduce the following definition

$$\frac{1}{1+(q1)H_q(Yx)}_q^{(X)}\frac{1}{1+(q1)H_q(YX)}$$
(11)
where the bracket denotes the normalized $`q`$-expectation value with respect to $`p(x)`$. Then we have from Eq(10),

$$H_q(X,Y)=\frac{1}{q1}\left[\frac{1+(q1)H_q(YX)}{{\displaystyle \underset{x}{}}p^q(x)}1\right].$$
(12)
Putting $`{\displaystyle \underset{x}{}}p^q(x)=\left[1+(q1)H_q(X)\right]^1`$ into this yields the theorem.$`\mathrm{}`$
This theorem has a remarkable similarity to the relation with which the Jackson basic number in $`q`$-deformation theory satisfies, which was pointed out in Ref.. That is, $`[X]_q(q^X1)/(q1)`$ is the Jackson basic number of a quantity $`X`$. Then, for the sum of two quantities $`X`$ and $`Y`$, the assosiated basic number $`[X+Y]_q`$ is shown to become $`[X]_q+[Y]_q+(q1)[X]_q[Y]_q`$. Obviously this theorem recovers ordinary relation $`H(X,Y)=H(X)+H(YX)`$ in the limit $`q1`$. In this modified Tsallis formalism, $`q`$ appears as $`q1`$ instead of as $`1q`$. When $`X`$ and $`Y`$ are independent events each other, Eq(8) gives the pseudoadditivity relation. However, it is converse to the case of the original Tsallis one in that $`q>1`$ yields superadditivity and $`q<1`$ subadditivity. It is worth mentioning that the concept of nonextensive conditional entropy in the framework of the original Tsallis entropy has firstly introduced for discussing quantum entanglement in Ref.. From this theorem, we immediately have the following corollary concerning the equivocation.
Corollary.

$$H_q(YX)=\frac{H_q(Y,ZX)H_q(ZY,X)+(q1)\{H_q(X)H_q(Y,ZX)H_q(X,Y)H_q(ZY,X)\}}{1+(q1)H_q(X)}$$
(13)
Proof.
In Eq(8), when we see $`Y`$ as $`Y,Z`$ we have

$$H_q(X,Y,Z)=H_q(X)+H_q(Y,ZX)+(q1)H_q(X)H_q(Y,ZX),$$
(14)
on the other hand, when we regard $`X`$ as $`Y,X`$ and $`Y`$ as $`Z`$, we get

$$H_q(X,Y,Z)=H_q(X,Y)+H_q(Y,ZX)+(q1)H_q(X,Y)H_q(ZY,X).$$
(15)
Subtracting the both sides of the above two equations and arranging with respect to $`H_q(YX)`$ with Eq(8), we obtain the corollary. $`\mathrm{}`$
Remarks: In the additive limit($`q1`$), we recover the relation $`H(YX)=H(Y,ZX)H(ZY,X)`$.
Moreover, with the help of Eq(13), we have the following theorem.
Theorem 2. Hierarchical structure of entropy $`H_q`$
The joint entropy of $`n`$ random variables $`X_1,X_2,\mathrm{},X_n`$ satisfies

$$H_q(X_1,X_2,\mathrm{},X_n)=\underset{i=1}{\overset{n}{}}\left[1+(q1)H_q(X_{i1},\mathrm{},X_1)\right]H_q(X_iX_{i1},\mathrm{},X_1).$$
(16)
Proof.
From Eq(8), $`H_q(X_1,X_2)=H_q(X_1)+\left[1+(q1)H_q(X_1)\right]H_q(X_2X_1)`$ holds. Next, from Eq(14), we have

$$H_q(X_1,X_2,X_3)=H_q(X_1)+H_q(X_2,X_3X_1)+(q1)H_q(X_1)H_q(X_2,X_3X_1).$$
(17)
Since $`H_q(X_2,X_3X_1)`$ is written using Eq(13) as

$$H_q(X_2,X_3X_1)=H_q(X_2X_1)+\frac{1+(q1)H_q(X_1,X_2)}{1+(q1)H_q(X_1)}H_q(X_3X_2,X_1),$$
(18)
Eq(17) can be rewritten as

$$H_q(X_1,X_2,X_3)=H_q(X_1)+\left[1+(q1)H_q(X_1)\right]H_q(X_2X_1)+\left[1+(q1)H_q(X_1,X_2)\right]H_q(X_3X_2,X_1).$$
(19)
Similarly, repeating application of the corollary gives the theorem. $`\mathrm{}`$
Remark: In the additive limit, we get $`H(X_1,X_2,\mathrm{},X_n)=_{i=1}^nH(X_iX_{i1},\mathrm{},X_1)`$ which states that the entropy of $`n`$ variables is constituted by the sum of the conditional entropies (Chain rule).
From this relation Eq(16), we need all joint entropy below the level of $`n`$ random variables to acquire the joint entropy $`H_q(X_1,\mathrm{},X_n)`$, which the situation is similar to the BBGKY hierarchy in the $`N`$-body distribution function. Let us next define the mutual information $`_q(Y;X)`$, which quantifies the amount of information that can be gained from one event $`X`$ about another event $`Y`$,

$$_q(Y;X)H_q(Y)H_q(YX)=\frac{H_q(X)+H_q(Y)H_q(X,Y)+(q1)H_q(X)H_q(Y)}{1+(q1)H_q(X)}.$$
(20)
Therefore $`_q(Y;X)`$ expresses the reduction in the uncertainty of $`Y`$ due to the acquisition of knowledge of $`X`$. Here we postulate that the mutual information in nonadditive case is non-negative. The non-negativity may be considered to be a requirement rather than the one to be proved in order to be in consistent with the usual additive mutual information. $`_q(Y;X)`$ also converges to the usual mutual information $`(Y;X)=H(Y)H(YX)=H(X)+H(Y)H(X,Y)`$ in the additive case($`q1`$). We note that the mutual information of a random variable with itself is the entropy itself $`_q(X;X)=H_q(X)`$. When $`X`$ and $`Y`$ are independent variables, we have $`_q(Y;X)=0`$. Then, we have the following theorem.
Theorem 3. Independence bound on entropy $`H_q`$

$$H_q(X_1,X_2,\mathrm{},X_n)\underset{i=1}{\overset{n}{}}\left[1+(q1)H_q(X_{i1},\mathrm{},X_1)\right]H_q(X_i)$$
(21)
with equality if and only if each $`X_i`$ is independent.
Proof.
From the assumption of $`_q(X;Y)0`$ introduced above, we have

$$\underset{i=1}{\overset{n}{}}H_q(X_iX_{i1},\mathrm{},X_1)\underset{i=1}{\overset{n}{}}H_q(X_i)$$
(22)
with equality if and only if each $`X_i`$ is independent of $`X_{i1},\mathrm{},X_1`$. Then the theorem holds from the previous theorem Eq(16). $`\mathrm{}`$

### B The generalized KL entropy

The KL entropy or the relative entropy is a measure of the distance between two probability distributions $`p_i(x)`$ and $`p_i^{}(x)`$. Here, we define it as the normalized $`q`$-expectation value of the change of the nonadditive information content $`\mathrm{\Delta }I_qI_q(p^{}(x))I_q(p(x))`$,

$$D_q(p(x)p^{}(x))\frac{{\displaystyle \underset{x}{}}p^q(x)\mathrm{\Delta }I_q}{{\displaystyle \underset{x}{}}p^q(x)}=\frac{{\displaystyle \underset{x}{}}p^q(x)\left(\mathrm{ln}_qp(x)\mathrm{ln}_qp^{}(x)\right)}{{\displaystyle \underset{x}{}}p^q(x)}.$$
(23)
We note that the above generalized KL entropy satisfies the form invariant structure which has introduced in Ref.. We review the positivity of the generalized KL entropy in case of $`q>0`$ which can be considered to be a necessary property to develop the IT.
Theorem 4. Information inequality
For $`q>0`$, we have

$$D_q(p(x)p^{}(x))0$$
(24)
with equality if and only if $`p(x)=p^{}(x)`$ for all $`x`$.
Proof.
The outline of the proof is the same as the one in Ref. except for the factor $`_xp^q(x)`$. From the definition Eq(23),

$`D_q(p(x)p^{}(x))`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{1q}}{\displaystyle \underset{x}{}}p(x)\left\{1\left({\displaystyle \frac{p^{}(x)}{p(x)}}\right)^{1q}\right\}/{\displaystyle \underset{x}{}}p^q(x)`$ (25)
$``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{1q}}\left\{1\left({\displaystyle \underset{x}{}}p(x){\displaystyle \frac{p^{}(x)}{p(x)}}\right)^{1q}\right\}/{\displaystyle \underset{x}{}}p^q(x)=0`$ (26)
where Jensen’s inequality for the convex function has been used : $`_xp(x)f(x)f\left(_xp(x)x\right)`$ with $`f(x)=\mathrm{ln}_q(x)`$, $`f^{\prime \prime }(x)>0`$. We have equality in the second line if and only if $`p^{}(x)/p(x)=1`$ for all $`x`$, accordingly $`D_q(p(x)p^{}(x))=0`$. $`\mathrm{}`$

## III Source Coding Theorem

Having presented some properties of the nonadditive entropy and the generalized KL entropy as a preliminary, we are now in a status to address our main results that the Shannon’s source coding theorem can be extended to the nonadditive case. Let us consider encoding the sequence of source letters generated from an information source to the sequence of binary codewords as an example. If a code is allocated for four source letters $`X_1,X_2,X_3,X_4`$ as $`0,10,110,111`$ respectively, the source sequence $`X_2X_4X_3X_2`$ is coded into $`1011111010`$. On the other hand, if another code assigns them as $`0,1,00,11`$, then the codeword becomes $`111001`$. The difference between the two codes is striking in the coding. In the former codeword, the first two letters $`10`$ corresponds to $`X_2`$ and not the beginning of any other codeword , then we can observe $`X_2`$. Next there are no codeword corresponding to $`1`$ and $`11`$ but $`111`$ is, and is decoded into $`X_4`$. Then the next $`110`$ is decoded into $`X_3`$, leaving $`10`$ which is decoded into $`X_2`$. Therefore we can uniquely decode the codeword. In the latter case, however, we have possibilities to interpret the first three letters $`111`$ as $`X_2X_2X_2`$, $`X_2X_4`$ or as $`X_4X_2`$. Namely, this code cannot be uniquely decoded into the source letter that gave rise to it. Accordingly, we need to deal with so-called the prefix code or the instantaneous code such as the former case. The prefix code is a code which no codeword is a prefix of any other codeword(prefix condition code). We recall that any code which satisfies the prefix condition over the alphabet size $`D`$($`D=2`$ is a binary case) must satisfy the Kraft inequality,

$$\underset{i}{\overset{M}{}}D^{l_i}1$$
(27)
where $`l_i`$ is a code length of $`i`$th codeword($`i=1,\mathrm{}M`$). Moreover if a code is uniquely decodable, the Kraft inequality holds for it. We usually hope to encode the sequence of source letters to the sequence of codewords as short as possible, that is our problem is finding a prefix condition code with the minimum average length of a set of codewords$`\{l_i\}`$. The optimal code is given by minimizing the following functional constrained by the Kraft inequality,

$$J=\frac{_ip_i^ql_i}{_ip_i^q}+\lambda \left(\underset{i}{}D^{l_i}\right)$$
(28)
where $`p_i`$ is the probability of realization of the word length $`l_i`$ and $`\lambda `$ is a Lagrange multiplier. We have assumed equality in the Kraft inequality and have neglected the integer constraint on $`l_i`$. Differentiating with respect to $`l_i`$ and setting the derivative to $`0`$ yields

$$D^{l_i}=\frac{p_i^q}{\left(_ip_i^q\right)\lambda \mathrm{log}D}.$$
(29)
Here, it is worth noting that from the Kraft inequality the Lagrange multiplier $`\lambda `$ is related as $`\lambda (\mathrm{log}D)^1`$. Furthermore when the equality holds, the fraction $`D^{l_i^{}}`$ which is given by the optimal codeword length $`l_i^{}`$ is expressed as

$$D^{l_i^{}}=\frac{p_i^q}{_ip_i^q}.$$
(30)
Therefore $`l_i^{}`$ can be written as $`\mathrm{log}_D(_ip_i^q)q\mathrm{log}_Dp_i`$ and in the additive limit, we obtain $`l_i^{}=\mathrm{log}_Dp_i`$. However, we can not always determine the optimal codeword length like this since the $`l_i`$’s must be integers. We have the following theorem.
Theorem 5.
The average codeword length $`L_q`$ of any prefix code for a random variable $`X`$ satisfies

$$L_qH_q(X)$$
(31)
with equality if and only if $`p_i=\left[1(1q)l_i\right]^{\frac{1}{1q}}`$
Proof.
From Eq(23) the generalized KL entropy between two distributions $`p`$ and $`r`$ is written as

$`D_q(pr)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{_ip_i^q\left(\mathrm{ln}_qp_i\mathrm{ln}_qr_i\right)}{_ip_i^q}}={\displaystyle \frac{1_ip_i^qr_i^{1q}}{(1q)_ip_i^q}}`$ (32)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1_ip_i^q}{(1q)_ip_i^q}}{\displaystyle \frac{_ip_i^q(r_i^{1q}1)}{(1q)_ip_i^q}}.`$ (33)
If we take the information content associated with probability $`r`$ as the $`i`$-th codeword length $`l_i`$, i.e, $`(r_i^{1q}1)/(1q)=l_i`$, then the average codeword length can be written from Eq(33) as

$$L_q=H_q(X)+D_q(pr)$$
(34)
Since $`D_q(pr)0`$ for $`q>0`$ from Theorem 4, we have the theorem. The equality holds if and only if $`p_i=r_i`$. $`\mathrm{}`$
We note that the relation $`(r_i^{1q}1)/(1q)=l_i`$ means that the codeword length $`l_i`$ equals to the information content different from $`p`$, $`l_i=I_q(r)`$. When the equality is realized in the above theorem, we can derive an interesting interpretation on the nonadditivity parameter $`q`$. The condition of the equality states that the probability is expressed as the Tsallis’s canonical ensemble like factor in an i-wise manner. Then each $`l_i`$ has the limit in length corresponding to $`q`$ such as $`l_i^{max}=1/(1q)`$.

Since $`\mathrm{log}_D\left(_ip_i^q\right)q\mathrm{log}_Dp_i`$ obtained by the optimization problem is not always equal to an integer, we impose the integer condition on the codewords $`\{l_i\}`$ by rounding it up as $`l_i=\mathrm{log}_D\left(_ip_i^q\right)q\mathrm{log}_Dp_i`$, where $`x`$ denotes the smallest integer $`x`$. Moreover the relation $`\mathrm{log}_D\left(_ip_i^q\right)q\mathrm{log}_Dp_i\mathrm{log}_D\left(_ip_i^q\right)q\mathrm{log}_Dp_i`$ leads to

$`{\displaystyle \underset{i}{}}D^{\mathrm{log}_D\left(_ip_i^q\right)q\mathrm{log}_Dp_i}`$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{i}{}}D^{(\mathrm{log}_D\left(_ip_i^q\right)q\mathrm{log}_Dp_i)}`$ (35)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{i}{}}{\displaystyle \frac{p_i^q}{_ip_i^q}}=1.`$ (36)
Hence $`\{l_i\}`$ satisfies the Kraft inequality. Moreover, we have the following theorem.
Theorem 6.
The average codeword length assigned by $`l_i=\mathrm{log}_D\left(_ip_i^q\right)q\mathrm{log}_Dp_i`$ satisfies

$$H_q(p)+D_q(pr)L_q<H_q(p)+D_q(pr)+1.$$
(37)
Proof.
The integer codeword lengths satisfies

$$\mathrm{log}_D\left(\underset{i}{}p_i^q\right)q\mathrm{log}_Dp_il_i<\mathrm{log}_D\left(\underset{i}{}p_i^q\right)q\mathrm{log}_Dp_i+1.$$
(38)
Multiplying by $`p_i^q/_ip_i^q`$ and summing over $`i`$ with Eq(34) yields the theorem. $`\mathrm{}`$
This means that the distribution different from the optimal one provokes a correction of $`D_q(pr)`$ in the average codeword length as does in the case of additive one.
We have discussed the properties of the nonadditive entropy in the case of one letter so far. Next, let us consider the situation which we transmit a sequence of $`n`$ letters from the source in such a way that each letter is to be generated independently as identically distributed random variables according to $`p(x)`$. Then the average codeword length per letter $`L_n_q=l(X_1,\mathrm{},X_n)_q/n`$ is bounded as we derived in the preceding theorem,

$`H_q(X_1,\mathrm{},X_n)l(X_1,\mathrm{},X_n)_q<H_q(X_1,\mathrm{},X_n)+1.`$ (39)
Since we are now considering independently, identically distributed random variables $`X_1,\mathrm{},X_n`$, we obtain

$$\frac{_{i=1}^n\left[1+(q1)H_q(X_{i1},\mathrm{},X_1)\right]H_q(X_i)}{n}L_n_q<\frac{_{i=1}^n\left[1+(q1)H_q(X_{i1},\mathrm{},X_1)\right]H_q(X_i)}{n}+\frac{1}{n},$$
(40)
where we have used Theorem 3. This relation can be considered to be the generalized source coding theorem for the finite number of letters. We note that we obtain $`H(X)L_n<H(X)+1/n`$ in the additive limit since $`H(X_1,\mathrm{},X_n)=_iH(X_i)=nH(X)`$ holds.

## IV The generalized Fano’s inequality

Fano’s inequality is an essential ingredient to prove the converse to the channel coding theorem which states that the probability of error that arises over a channel is bounded away from zero when the transmission rate exceeds the channel capacity.. In the estimation of an original message generated from the information source, the original variable $`X`$ may be estimated as $`X^{}`$ on the side of a destination. Therefore, we introduce the probability of error $`P_e=Pr\{X^{}X\}`$ due to the noise of the channel through which the signal is transmitted. With an error random variable $`E`$ defined as

$$E=\{\begin{array}{cc}\hfill 1& \text{if }X^{}X\hfill \\ \hfill 0& \text{if }X^{}=X\hfill \end{array}$$
(41)
we have the following theorem which is considered to be the generalized(nonadditive version) Fano’s inequality.
Theorem 7. The generalized Fano’s inequality

$$H_q(XY)H_q(P_e)+\frac{1+(q1)H_q(E,Y)}{1+(q1)H_q(Y)}\frac{P_e^q}{P_e^q+(1P_e)^q}\frac{1(||1)^{1q}}{(q1)(||1)^{1q}}$$
(42)
where $`||`$ denotes the size of the alphabet of the information source.
Proof.
The proof can be done along the line of the usual Shannon’s additive case(e.g.). Using the corollary Eq(13), we have two different expressions for $`H_q(E,XY)`$,

$$H_q(E,XY)=H_q(XY)+\frac{1+(q1)H_q(X,Y)}{1+(q1)H_q(Y)}H_q(EX,Y)$$
(43)
and

$$H_q(E,XY)=H_q(EY)+\frac{1+(q1)H_q(E,Y)}{1+(q1)H_q(Y)}H_q(XE,Y)$$
(44)
where we have used the corollary by regarding $`H_q(E,XY)`$ as $`H_q(X,EY)`$ in the second expression Eq(44). We are now considering the following situation. That is, we wish to know the genuine random variable $`Y`$ which can be related to the $`X`$ by the nonadditive conditional information content $`I_q(yx)`$. Hence we calculate $`X^{}`$, an estimate of $`X`$, as a function of $`Y`$ such as $`g(Y)`$. Then we see $`H_q(EX,Y)`$ becomes $`0`$ since $`E`$ is a function of $`X`$ and $`Y`$ by the definition Eq(41). Therefore the first expression of $`H_q(E,XY)`$ reduces to $`H_q(XY)`$. On the other hand, from the non-negativity property of $`(E;Y)`$ we assumed and from the relation $`H_q(E)=H_q(P_e)`$, we can evaluate $`H_q(EY)`$ as $`H_q(EY)H_q(E)=H_q(P_e)`$. Moreover, $`H_q(XE,Y)`$ can be written as

$`H_q(XE,Y)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{_E(Pr\{E\})^qH_q(XY,E)}{_E(Pr\{E\})^q}}`$ (45)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{(1P_e)^qH_q(XY,0)+P_e^qH_q(XY,1)}{P_e^q+(1P_e)^q}}.`$ (46)
For $`E=0`$, $`g(Y)`$ gives $`X`$ resulting in $`H_q(XY,0)=0`$ and for $`E=1`$, we have upper bound on $`H_q(XY,1)`$ by the maximum entropy comprising of the remaining outcomes $`||1`$,

$$H_q(XY,1)\frac{1(||1)^{1q}}{(1q)(||1)^{1q}}.$$
(47)
Then it follows from Eq(46) that

$$\left[P_e^q+(1P_e)^q\right]H_q(XE,Y)P_e^q\frac{1(||1)^{1q}}{(1q)(||1)^{1q}}.$$
(48)
Combining the above results with Eq(44), we have the theorem.$`\mathrm{}`$
Remark: In the additive limit, we obtain the usual Fano’s inequality $`H(XY)H(P_e)+P_e\mathrm{ln}(||1)`$ in nat unit.

## V Concluding Remarks

We have attempted to extend the Shannon’s additive IT to the nonadditive case by using the nonadditive information content Eq(1). In developing the nonadditive IT, this postulate of the nonadditive information content seems to plausible selection in terms of the unification of the meaning of average throughout the entire theory. As a consequence, the information entropy becomes the modified type of Tsallis nonextensive entropy. We have shown that the properties of the nonadditive information entropy, conditional entropy and the joint entropy in the form of theorem, which are necessary elements to develop IT. These results recover the usual Shannon’s ones in the additive limit($`q1`$). Moreover, the source coding theorem can be generalized to the nonadditive case. As we have seen in the theorem 5, the nonadditivity of the information content can be regarded that it determines the longest codeword we can transmit to the channel. Philosophy of the present attempt can be positioned as a reverse of Jaynes’s pioneering work. Jaynes has brought a concept of IT to statistical mechanics in the form of maximizing entropy of a system (Jaynes maximum entropy principle). The information theoretical approach to statistical mechanics is now considered to be very robust in discussing some areas of physics. In turn, we have approached IT in a nonadditive way. We believe that the present consideration based on the nonadditive information content may trigger some practical future applications in such an area of the information processing.

###### Acknowledgements.

The author would like to thank Dr.S.Abe for useful comments at the Yukawa Institute for Theoretical Physics, Kyoto, Japan and for suggesting him the nonadditive conditional entropy form Eq(11).


text:
# CHIRAL DYNAMICS IN THE ELECTROWEAK SECTOR**footnote *Presented at the 3rd Workshop on Chiral Dynamics – Chiral Dynamics 2000: Theory and Experiment, Newport News, VA, USA, 17-22 July 2000. To be published in the Proceedings.

## 1 The electroweak chiral Lagrangian

If the electroweak (EW) symmetry is dynamically broken by some strongly interacting underlying theory, similarly to chiral symmetry breaking in QCD, and if there is a mass gap between the observed particles in the Standard Model (SM) and the scale of this underlying theory, one can construct an effective field theory in analogy to chiral perturbation theory. In the bosonic sector, the corresponding EW chiral Lagrangian is of the form $`_{eff}=_2+_4+\mathrm{}`$, where $`_k`$ is of order $`p^k`$. The Lagrangian $`_2`$ describes a gauged non-linear sigma model. $`_4=_ia_i𝒪_i`$, where the $`SU(2)_L\times U(1)_Y`$ gauge-invariant operators $`𝒪_i`$ are built from the light fields, i.e. the photon and the $`W`$\- and $`Z`$-bosons . The low-energy constants (LEC’s) $`a_i`$ parametrize different underlying theories.

## 2 Are strongly interacting models ruled out by precision data ?

a) Light Higgs: A heavy Higgs boson is excluded since all recent SM fits of precision data point to a low Higgs mass, $`M_H<170\mathrm{GeV}`$ at 95% C.L. However, it is not true that all strongly interacting theories lead to a heavy Higgs-like signal. As shown in Table 1, the pattern of LEC’s $`a_i`$ for a heavy Higgs boson differs from the one in a simple Technicolor model, estimated using VMD .

b) $`S`$-parameter: The oblique correction parameters $`S,T,U`$ describe effects of new physics beyond  the SM that enter the self-energies of EW gauge bosons . The PDG  quotes the value $`S=0.16\pm 0.11`$ for $`M_H=300\mathrm{GeV}`$, whereas estimates for Technicolor models lead to $`S𝒪(1)`$. The parameters $`S,T,U`$ can be related  to the LEC’s $`a_i`$, e.g., $`S=16\pi \left[a_1(\mu )+\text{EWChL loops}(\mu )\right].`$ Interpreting the PDG values as bounds on the deviations from the SM, $`\mathrm{\Delta }SSS_{SM}(M_H)`$, one obtains with the values for the $`a_i`$ for a heavy Higgs boson:

$$\begin{array}{ccccc}\hfill \mathrm{\Delta }S& =& 16\pi \left[a_1(\mu )\frac{1}{12}\frac{(1/6)+\mathrm{ln}(M_H^2/\mu ^2)}{16\pi ^2}\right]\hfill & & 10^3\times a_1(M_Z)=1.8\pm 2.2,\hfill \\ \hfill \mathrm{\Delta }T& =& \frac{8\pi }{c_W^2}\left[a_0(\mu )+\frac{3}{8}\frac{(1/6)+\mathrm{ln}(M_H^2/\mu ^2)}{16\pi ^2}\right]\hfill & & 10^3\times a_0(M_Z)=6.4\pm 4.3,\hfill \\ \hfill \mathrm{\Delta }U& =& 16\pi a_8\hfill & & 10^3\times a_8(M_Z)=2.4\pm 3.0.\hfill \end{array}$$

Although this rules out QCD-like Technicolor models, mainly from $`a_1`$, the size of the $`a_i`$ is not unnatural for strongly interacting theories, see also Refs. .

## 3 $`Sl_5^{GL}`$ or the issue of gauge invariance

There are some subtle problems with gauge invariance , if one tries to relate $`S`$ to $`a_1`$ and $`a_1`$ to $`l_5^{GL}`$ in the ordinary chiral Lagrangian . There is a qualitative difference to ChPT because the gauge fields in the EW chiral Lagrangian are dynamical. Using the equations of motion for the gauge fields one can in fact remove the operators corresponding to $`a_1`$ and $`a_8`$ from the basis . Therefore, one cannot simply map estimates for the LEC’s $`l_i^{GL}`$ from QCD or from models into the LEC’s $`a_i`$ without performing a complete matching calculation.

## Acknowledgments

I would like to thank A. Schenk for the collaboration on some of the topics presented here. This work was supported by Schweizerischer Nationalfonds.

## References


text:
# Comment on “Quantum Phase Transition of the Randomly Diluted Heisenberg Antiferromagnet on a Square Lattice”

In , Kato et al. presented quantum Monte Carlo results indicating that the critical concentration of random non-magnetic sites in the two-dimensional antiferromagnetic Heisenberg model equals the classical percolation density; $`p_\mathrm{c}=p^{}0.407254`$. The data also suggested a surprising dependence of the critical exponents on the spin $`S`$ of the magnetic sites, with a gradual approach to the classical percolation exponents as $`S\mathrm{}`$. This behavior is contrary to well established notions of universality, according to which the exponents should depend only on symmetries and dimensionality. I here argue that the exponents in fact are $`S`$-independent and equal to those of classical percolation. The apparent $`S`$-dependent behavior found in  is due to temperature effects in the simulations as well as a quantum effect that masks the true asymptotic scaling behavior for small lattices.

I discuss simulation results for the $`S=1/2`$ case obtained using the stochastic series expansion method  on $`L\times L`$ lattices at the percolation density. Fig. 1a shows results for the disorder-averaged staggered structure factor (the equal-time spin correlation function at wave-vector $`𝐪=(\pi ,\pi )`$, defined as in ) versus inverse temperature for three different system sizes ($`J`$ is the Heisenberg coupling). The same configurations of magnetic sites were used at all temperatures and the statistical errors are therefore correlated and completely dominated by fluctuations between different site configurations (several hundred random site configurations were used for each $`L`$). In  lattices with $`L48`$ were studied at temperatures down to $`J/1000`$. Fig. 1a reveals that for $`L=48`$ the structure factor has not yet converged to its asymptotic $`T=0`$ value at this temperature. A careful statistical analysis, taking into account the covariance between data at different temperatures, gives that $`S(\pi ,\pi )`$ at $`J/T=1024`$ is $`(95.0\pm 0.5)\%`$ of the almost saturated value at $`J/T=8192`$. It is thus likely that the finite-size scaling in  is to some extent affected by temperature.

Temperature effects alone cannot explain the anomalous behavior of the critical exponents found for small $`S`$ in . In order to better understand the scaling behavior of $`S(\pi ,\pi )`$ it is useful to also study the cluster structure factor $`S_{\mathrm{cl}}(\pi ,\pi )`$ defined on the largest connected cluster of magnetic sites. The corresponding cluster magnetization is given by $`m_{\mathrm{cl}}^2=3S_{\mathrm{cl}}(\pi ,\pi )/N_{\mathrm{cl}}`$, where $`N_{\mathrm{cl}}`$ is the size of the cluster and $``$ denotes the average over random site configurations. In the thermodynamic limit the clusters have fractal dimension $`D=91/48`$ and in  it was argued that the spin correlations on these clusters decay algebraically with an $`S`$-dependent exponent. Fig. 1b shows $`m_{\mathrm{cl}}^2`$ versus $`1/L^{D/2}`$ along with a quadratic fit. The cluster magnetization clearly scales to a finite value as $`L\mathrm{}`$ and therefore, contrary to the claim of , the fractal clusters for $`S=1/2`$ are long-range ordered. The scaling of the full $`S(\pi ,\pi )`$ must then be classical and, as was also concluded in , the critical density $`p_\mathrm{c}p^{}`$.

The reason why the classical exponents are not seen in the full staggered structure factor considered in  is that the cluster magnetization decays considerably with increasing lattice size for the sizes used, as can be seen in Fig. 1b. This partially compensates for the growth of the fractal clusters with $`L`$, leading to a slower growth of $`S(\pi ,\pi )`$ with $`L`$ than in a classical system for which $`m_{\mathrm{cl}}^2`$ is constant. The asymptotic behavior can be observed only when $`L`$ is sufficiently large for the relative size corrections to $`m_{\mathrm{cl}}^2`$ to be small. This quantum mechanical effect makes it extremely difficult to directly observe the true critical behavior for small values of $`S`$.

Support by NSF grant DMR-97-12765 is acknowledged. The simulations were carried out on the NCSA Origin2000 system and the Condor system at the University of Wisconsin – Madison.


text:
# 1 Introduction

## 1 Introduction

The SZ effect (Sunyaev-Zel’dovich 1972) offers the possibility to put important constraints on the cosmological models. Combining the temperature change in the cosmic microwave background due to the SZ effect and the X-ray emission observations, the angular distance to galaxy clusters, and consequently the Hubble constant $`H_o`$, can be derived.
The SZ effect is difficult to measure, since systematic errors can be important. For example, Inagaki et al. (1995) analysed the reliability of the Hubble constant measurement based on the SZ effect. Cooray (1998) showed that projection effects of clusters can lead incidence on the calculations of the Hubble constant and the gas mass fraction, and Hughes & Birkinshaw (1998) as well as Sulkanen (1999) pointed out, that galaxy cluster shapes can produce systematic errors on the measured value of $`H_o`$.
The aim of this contribution is to investigate the influence of extension, shape and temperature profile of the cluster gas distribution on the inferred value of $`H_o`$. In Section 2 we recall the calculations for the determination of the Hubble constant for a non-spherical geometry and finite extension of the galaxy cluster, and in Section 3 we present a quantitative discussion on the incidence of these effects on the value of the Hubble constant. In Section 4 we give a short outlook.

## 2 Basic equations

The $`\beta `$-model (Cavaliere & Fusco-Femiano 1976) is widely used in X-ray astronomy to parametrise the gas density profile in clusters of galaxies by fitting their surface brightness profile. Nevertheless, fitting an aspherical distribution with a spherical $`\beta `$-model can lead to an important inaccuracy (see Inagaki et al. 1995).
Fabricant et al. (1984) showed a pronounced ellipticity for the cluster Abell 2256, indicating that the underlying density profile has to be aspherical. Allen et al. (1993) obtained the same conclusion for the profile of Abell 478, Hughes et al. (1988) for the Coma cluster, Neumann & Böhringer (1997) and Hughes & Birkinshaw (1998) for CL0016+16.
Given these observations, we assume an ellipsoidal $`\beta `$-model 222The set of coordinates $`r_x`$, $`r_y`$ and $`r_z`$, as well as the characteristic lengths of the half axes of the ellipsoid $`\zeta _1`$, $`\zeta _2`$ and $`\zeta _3`$ are defined in units of the core radius $`r_c`$.:

$$n_e(r_x,r_y,r_z)=n_{eo}\left[1+\frac{r_x^2}{\zeta _1^2}+\frac{r_y^2}{\zeta _2^2}+\frac{r_z^2}{\zeta _3^2}\right]^{3\beta /2},$$
(1)
where $`n_{eo}`$ is the electron number density at the center of the cluster and $`\beta `$ is a free fitting parameter which lies in the range $`1/2\beta 1`$.
The Compton parameter $`y`$ and the X-ray surface brightness $`S_X`$ depend on the temperature of the hot gas $`T_e`$ and the electron number density $`n_e`$ as follows

$$y2_0^ln_eT_e𝑑r_y,$$
(2)
$$S_x2_0^ln_e^2\sqrt{T_e}𝑑r_y,$$
(3)
where $`l`$ is the maximal extension of the hot gas along the line of sight in units of the core radius $`r_c`$ and the X-ray emissivity is assumed to be $`ϵ_X=ϵ\sqrt{T_e}`$. We have chosen the line of sight along the $`r_y`$ axis.
For a detailed calculation of the Compton parameter and the X-ray surface brightness we refer to the paper by Puy et al. (2000):

$`y(r_x,r_z)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\kappa _BT_{eo}\sigma _Tn_{eo}\zeta _2r_c}{m_ec^2}}\times \left(1+{\displaystyle \frac{r_x^2}{\zeta _1^2}}+{\displaystyle \frac{r_z^2}{\zeta _3^2}}\right)^{\frac{3}{2}\beta +\frac{1}{2}}`$ (4)
$`\times `$ $`\left[B({\displaystyle \frac{3}{2}}\beta {\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}},{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}})B_m({\displaystyle \frac{3}{2}}\beta {\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}},{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}})\right],`$
$`S_X(r_x,r_z)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{ϵn_{eo}^2\sqrt{T_{eo}}\zeta _2r_c}{4\pi (1+z)^3}}\times \left(1+{\displaystyle \frac{r_x^2}{\zeta _1^2}}+{\displaystyle \frac{r_z^2}{\zeta _3^2}}\right)^{3\beta +\frac{1}{2}}`$ (5)
$`\times `$ $`\left[B(3\beta {\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}},{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}})B_m(3\beta {\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}},{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}})\right],`$
where we introduced the Beta and the incomplete Beta-functions with the cut-off parameter $`m`$ given by:

$$m=\frac{1+(r_x/\zeta _1)^2+(r_z/\zeta _3)^2}{1+(r_x/\zeta _1)^2+(r_z/\zeta _3)^2+(l/\zeta _2)^2}.$$
(6)
Introducing the angular core radius $`\theta _c=r_c/D_A`$, where $`D_A`$ is the angular diameter distance of the cluster:

$$D_A=\frac{c}{H_o}\frac{q_oz+(q_o1)(\sqrt{1+2q_oz}1)}{q_o^2(1+z)^2},$$
(7)
and $`q_o`$ is the deceleration parameter, we can estimate the Hubble constant from the ratio between $`y^2(r_x,r_z)`$ and $`S_X(r_x,r_z)`$. If we choose the line of sight through the cluster center we get:

$$H_0(l)=\lambda ^{}T_{eo}^{3/2}\frac{S_X(l)}{y^2(l)}\theta _c\frac{\left[B(\frac{3}{2}\beta \frac{1}{2},\frac{1}{2})B_m(\frac{3}{2}\beta \frac{1}{2},\frac{1}{2})\right]^2}{\left[B(3\beta \frac{1}{2},\frac{1}{2})B_m(3\beta \frac{1}{2},\frac{1}{2})\right]},$$
(8)
for a finite extension $`l`$ and, for an infinitely extended cluster, we get instead

$$H_0(\mathrm{})=\lambda ^{}T_{eo}^{3/2}\frac{S_X(\mathrm{})}{y^2(\mathrm{})}\theta _c\frac{\left[B(\frac{3}{2}\beta \frac{1}{2},\frac{1}{2})\right]^2}{B(3\beta \frac{1}{2},\frac{1}{2})},$$
(9)
where $`\lambda ^{}`$ is a constant (see Puy et al. 2000).
Since $`S_X`$ and $`y^2`$ are observed quantities, the ratios $`S_X(\mathrm{})/y^2(\mathrm{})`$ and $`S_X(l)/y^2(l)`$ are in the following both set equal to the measured value $`(S_X/y^2)_{obs}`$.

## 3 Determination of the Hubble constant

Recently, Mauskopf et al. (2000) determined the Hubble constant from measurements of the X-ray emission and millimeter wavelength observations of the SZ effect in the cluster Abell 1835 with the Sunyaev-Zel’dovich Infrared Experiment (SuZIE) multifrequency array receiver. Assuming a spherical gas distribution with an isothermal equation of state, characterised by $`\beta =0.58\pm 0.02`$, $`T_{eo}=9.8_{1.3}^{+2.3}`$ keV and $`n_{eo}=5.64_{1.02}^{+1.61}\times 10^2`$ cm-3, they found a value of $`H_o^{obs}=59_{28}^{+38}`$ km s-1 Mpc-1 for the Hubble constant.
If we suppose other physical characteristics for the cluster such as: finite extension, polytropic temperature profile or aspherical density distribution, we get of course different values for the $`y`$-parameter and the surface brightness, and so a relative error with respect to the classical configuration (i.e. spherical distribution with infinite extension and isothermal temperature). Thus, we define three kind of relative errors:

* $`ϵ_y^{ext}=\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}1}(y_l/y_{\mathrm{}})`$ where $`y_{\mathrm{}}`$ is the Compton parameter for an infinite extension and $`y_l`$ for a finite cluster extension $`l`$. Here we consider an isothermal profile and a spherical distribution.
* $`ϵ_y^{poly}=\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}1}(y_{poly}/y_{iso})`$ where $`y_{iso}`$ is for an isothermal profile and $`y_{poly}`$ is for a polytropic profile. We consider here a spherical distribution with infinite extension.
* $`ϵ_y^{geom}=\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}1}(y_{ell}/y_{sph})`$ where $`y_{sph}`$ is the Compton parameter for a spherical distribution and $`y_{ell}`$ is for an ellipsoidal distribution, both with infinite extension and isothermal temperature profile.

Similarly, we can define the relative error for the surface brightness $`S_X`$. In the following we discuss the influence of the finite extension and the temperature and density profiles on the Hubble constant, and compare the result with the value given by Mauskopf et al. (2000).

### 3.1 Finite cluster extension

Since the hot gas in a cluster has a finite extension, each of the observed quantities, the Compton parameter and the X-ray surface brightness, will be smaller than those estimated assuming $`l\mathrm{}`$.
In Puy et al. (2000) we have analysed the influence of this correction for the simplest cluster case: isothermal $`\beta =2/3`$-model with a spherical density profile (i.e. $`\zeta _1=\zeta _2=\zeta _3=1`$), and a line of sight going through the cluster center (i.e. $`r_x=r_z=0`$). In Table 1 we give the relative error on the Compton $`y`$-parameter and the surface brightness for different finite extensions of the cluster. For a cluster with an extension of about 10 times the core radius $`r_c`$, the relative error with respect to the assumption of an infinite extension is only about 7 % for the Compton parameter. For the X-ray brightness the relative error due to the finite extension is much smaller, for instance an error of about 4% is obtained, if the cluster has an extension of only 2 times $`r_c`$.

In Figure 1 we show the influence of the finite extension $`l`$ using the same input parameters of Mauskopf et al. (2000). For a spherical geometry $`H_o`$ displays a strong dependence on the cluster extension. An extension of $`l10r_c`$ leads to $`H_o45`$ km s-1 Mpc-1, which is well below the value found by Mauskopf et al. (2000).

### 3.2 Polytropic index

Recently, Grego, Carlstrom, Joy et al. (2000) observed in Abell 370 a slow decline of the temperature with radius, well described by a gas with a polytropic index of $`\gamma =1.2`$. A non-isothermal equation of state for the intracluster gas, given by a polytropic temperature profile

$$T_e=T_{eo}\left[\frac{n_e}{n_{eo}}\right]^{\gamma 1},$$
(10)
can lead to a substantial deviation of the estimated quantities when compared to the isothermal case ($`\gamma =1`$). In Table 2 we have summarised the relative errors on $`y`$ and $`S_X`$ for different polytropic indices. We see that the error can, in some cases, be quite important (i.e. $`>10`$%).

In Figure 2 we compare the Hubble constant inferred from a polytropic temperature profile with the value obtained by Mauskopf et al. (2000) for an isothermal profile. We assume a spherical profile with infinite extension and obtain a Hubble constant of about 35 instead of 59 km s-1 Mpc-1 taking, as an illustration, a polytropic index of 1.2, as estimated by Grego et al. (2000) for Abell 370.

### 3.3 Geometrical effect

Pierre et al. (1996) studied the rich lensing cluster Abell 2390 with ROSAT and determined its gas and matter content. They found that on large scales the X-ray distribution has an elliptical shape with an axes ratio of minor to major half axis of $`\zeta _1/\zeta _31.33`$.
The influence of the geometrical shape of the cluster profile on the investigated quantities are summarised in Table 3. We considered two axisymmetric cases prolate (cigar shaped) with symmetry axis $`r_x`$, thus $`\zeta _2=\zeta _3=\sqrt{1/\zeta _1}`$, and oblate (pancake shaped), with symmetry axis along $`r_z`$, and thus $`\zeta _2=\zeta _1`$ and $`\zeta _3=1/\zeta _1^2`$. Using our results we see that the axes-ratio value obtained by Pierre et al. (1996) leads to a relative error on the Compton $`y`$ parameter of about 10%, depending on the line of sight and the shape of the cluster. The surface brightness measurements lead to errors of up to 25% (see Table 3).

The effect on the Hubble constant is shown in Figure 3 for a cigar shaped (i.e. prolate) cluster. We consider four different lines of sight, $`(r_x,r_z)`$=(1,0); (1,1); (0,0) and (0,1), given in units of the core radius $`r_c`$. For a strong flattening (i.e. $`>1.4`$) the value of the Hubble constant gets substantially modified.

## 4 Outlook

In addition to our modifications, it should be noted that the commonly used expression for the fractional temperature decrement $`\mathrm{\Delta }T_{SZ}`$ of the cosmic microwave background in clusters is based on the Kompaneets equation, which is derived under the assumption of non-relativistic electrons. However, the existence of many high-temperature galaxy clusters led to the need of taking into account the relativistic corrections for the electrons (Rephaeli 1995, Rephaeli & Yankovitch 1997). Nozawa et al. (2000) presented useful fitting formulae for these relativistic corrections based on the calculations of Itoh et al. (1998).
MITO (Millimeter and Infrared Testa grigia Observatory), a 2.6 m ground based telescope (De Petris et al. 1996), is currently dedicated to cosmological observations in particular to the Sunyaev-Zel’dovich effect. As the first step, large and nearby clusters (diameter $``$ 5 arcminutes) have been selected; for example in a recent paper D’Alba et al. (2000) have reported on the observations done on COMA cluster (Abell 1656, $`z=0.0235`$) and their preliminary results.
Therefore, in the analysis of coming data, it will be essential to take into account the relativistic corrections for high-temperature clusters and the possible effects, due to finite extension, polytropic index and geometry, that we have discussed above.

## Acknowledgements

The authors acknowledge J. Bartlett for the invitation to this workshop and the hospitality at the observatory of Toulouse (France). This work has been supported by the Dr Tomalla Foundation and by the Swiss National Science Foundation.

## References

Allen S.W., Fabian A.C., Johnstone D.A. et al. 1993, MNRAS 262, 901 Cavaliere, A. & Fusco-Femiano, R. 1976, A&A 49, 137 Cooray A. 1998, A&A 339, 623 D’Alba L., Melchiorri A., De Petris M. et al. 2000, astro-ph/0010084 De Petris M., Aquilini E., Canonico M. et al. 1996 New Astr. 1, 121 Fabricant D., Rybicki G., Gorenstein P. 1984, ApJ 286, 186 Grego L., Carlstrom J., Joy M. et al. 2000, astro-ph/0003085 Hughes J.P. & Birkinshaw M. 1998, ApJ 501, 1 Hughes J.P., Gorenstein P., Fabricant D. 1988, ApJ 329, 82 Inagaki Y., Suginohara T., Suto Y. 1995, Publ. Astron. Soc. Japan 47, 411 Itoh N., Kohyama Y., Nosawa S. 1998, ApJ 502, 7 Mauskopf P., Ade P., Allen W. et al. 2000, ApJ 538, 505 Neumann D. M. & Böhringer H. 1997, MNRAS 289, 123 Nozawa S., Itoh N., Kawana Y & Kohyama Y. 2000, ApJ 536, 31 Pierre M., Le Borgne J.F., Soucail G., Kneib J.P. 1996, A&A 311, 413 Puy D., Grenacher L., Jetzer Ph., Signore M. 2000 to appear in A&A, astro-ph/0009114 Rephaeli Y. 1995, ApJ 445, 33 Rephaeli Y. & Yankovitch D. 1997, ApJ 481, L55 Sulkanen M. 1999, ApJ 522, 59 Sunyaev R. & Zel’dovich Y. 1972, Comments Astroph. Space Phys. 4, 173


text:
# Hipparcos Luminosities and Asteroseismology

## 1. Preamble: To ‘e’ or not to ‘e’?

Because my talk was the last of the day, I chose to begin it with some controversy. I suggested that we heed the urgings of Trimble (1995) to adopt the spelling ‘astroseismology.’ My basis was a search using the ADS Abstract Service111http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abstract\_service.html that showed this spelling in the titles of the first three papers on the subject, by Christensen-Dalsgaard (1984), Gough (1985) and Kurtz (1986). Since all three authors are well-known experts on both stellar oscillations and the English language, I was inclined to accept Trimble’s suggestion. I have since checked the original papers and found the ‘e’ to be present in all three, so the ADS made a mistake (which they have since corrected). I am happy to retract my suggestion, and refer the interested reader to Gough (1996) for an eloquent and scholarly defence of the ‘e’.

Having tracked down the seminal paper on this subject, namely that by Christensen-Dalsgaard (1984), I can do no better than quote his definition of asteroseismology as “the science of using stellar oscillations for the study of the properties of stars, including their internal structure and dynamics.” Hipparcos luminosities are important because asteroseismology is most powerful in constraining stellar models when the oscillation frequencies are accompanied by more traditional observables. I will concentrate on three classes of stars for which Hipparcos parallaxes are particularly relevant.

## 2. $`\delta `$ Scuti variables

The $`\delta `$ Scuti variables are A and F stars lying on or near the main sequence, inside the classical instability strip. Recent reviews include those by Guzik (2000) and Handler (2000), as well as the proceedings of a workshop dedicated to these stars (Breger & Montgomery 2000). Applying asteroseismic techniques to multi-mode $`\delta `$ Scuti stars has been severely impeded by our inability to identify which oscillation modes are being observed. This difficulty is due both to the mysterious tendency of these stars to oscillate in only a small subset of possible modes, as well as the substantial frequency shifts produced by their fast rotation. The availability of precise Hipparcos parallaxes for some of these stars has not so far generated much progress in interpreting the complicated oscillation spectra (although see Bedding, Kjeldsen, & Christensen-Dalsgaard 1998 for a discussion of $`\kappa ^2`$ Boo).

High-amplitude $`\delta `$ Scuti stars (HADS) are a subclass for which Hipparcos parallaxes have been extremely valuable. These stars, which constitute about 10% of the total, pulsate in only one or a few modes (McNamara 1997; Petersen 1998; Alcock et al. 2000). Hipparcos parallaxes were used by Høg & Petersen (1997) to confirm HADS as otherwise normal stars that follow standard stellar evolution, ruling out alternative low-mass scenarios that had been proposed in the literature. In particular, they showed that the population II field variable SX Phe is well described by standard stellar models and is very similar to the variable blue stragglers in globular clusters.

Petersen & Høg (1998) used Hipparcos data to construct a period-luminosity relation for HADS, which is in agreement with previous relations derived for clusters. HADS therefore show promise as distance indicators to both the Galactic Bulge (Alcock et al. 2000), as well as to globular clusters and nearby dwarf galaxies (McNamara 2000).

## 3. Rapidly oscillating Ap stars

Lying in the same part of the H-R diagram as the $`\delta `$ Scuti variables, these are chemically peculiar magnetic stars that oscillate in high-overtone p-modes. Matthews, Kurtz, & Martinez (1999) have shown that Hipparcos parallaxes for a sample of twelve roAp stars agree reasonably well with parallaxes estimated from asteroseismology. However, there are systematic differences that imply that roAp stars are cooler than indicated by H$`\beta `$ photometry, suggesting a need to lower the effective temperature scale of Ap stars. Hopefully, angular diameters from interferometry will soon be able to resolve this issue.

## 4. Solar-like oscillations

The scientific importance of solar-like oscillations can be assessed from the tremendous impact that helioseismology has had on our understanding of the Sun. It seems certain that observations of similar oscillations in other stars will allow new and very strong tests of stellar evolution models. For example, stars only slightly more massive than the Sun are thought to have a convective core for part of their main-sequence lives. The associated mixing will clearly have a dramatic influence on the evolution and lifetime of a star, and this will be visible in the oscillation frequencies.

The search for analogues of the 5-minute solar oscillations in other stars finally seems to be bearing fruit. For discussion of a long series of disappointing and tentative results, see reviews by Brown & Gilliland (1994), Kjeldsen & Bedding (1995), Heasley et al. (1996) and Bedding & Kjeldsen (1998). Successes are now starting to appear, with velocity variations in two stars showing excellent evidence for oscillations: Procyon (Martic et al. 1999; Barban et al. 1999) and the G2 subgiant $`\beta `$ Hyi (Bedding et al. 2000). The subsequent comparisons of observed frequencies with model calculations will rely heavily on Hipparcos parallaxes. This has already been the case for the G0 subgiant $`\eta `$ Boo, in which good evidence for oscillations was detected by Kjeldsen et al. (1995). At the time, the observed frequencies agreed with the ground-based parallax. Since then, Hipparcos has given a factor of three improvement in parallax precision and maintained the agreement (Bedding et al. 1998), which is an important early success for asteroseismology of solar-like stars.

The recent progress in ground-based observations, as well as results from the star tracker on the otherwise-failed WIRE satellite (Buzasi et al. 2000), illustrate the potential of three upcoming space missions: MOST (Matthews et al. 2000), MONS (Kjeldsen, Bedding, & Christensen-Dalsgaard 2000) and COROT (Baglin et al. 1998). The prospects for obtaining oscillation measurements on a range of solar-type stars look very good, which therefore makes it vital to obtain as much information about the targets as possible. Hipparcos parallaxes will play a key role, and I strongly urge those planning the GAIA mission not to design out the capability to observe the very brightest stars.

### Acknowledgments.

For travel support, I thank the Australian Research Council and the Science Foundation for Physics in the University of Sydney.

## References

Alcock, C., et al. 2000, ApJ, 536, 798

Baglin, A., et al. 1998, in IAU Symp. 185, New Eyes to See Inside the Sun and Stars, ed. F.-L. Deubner, J. Christensen-Dalsgaard & D. W. Kurtz (Dordrecht: Kluwer), 301 (http://www.astrsp-mrs.fr/projets/corot/)

Barban, C., Michel, E., Martic, M., Schmitt, J., Lebrun, J. C., Baglin, A., & Bertaux, J. L. 1999, A&A, 350, 617

Bedding, T. R., Butler, R. P., Kjeldsen, H., Baldry, I. K., O’Toole, S. J., Tinney, C. G., Marcy, G. W., Kienzle, F., & Carrier, F. 2000, submitted to ApJ Letters

Bedding, T. R., & Kjeldsen, H. 1998, in ASP Conf. Ser. Vol. 154, Tenth Cambridge Workshop on Cool Stars, Stellar Systems and the Sun, ed R. A. Donahue & J. A. Bookbinder (San Francisco: ASP), 301

Bedding, T. R., Kjeldsen, H., & Christensen-Dalsgaard, J., 1998, in ASP Conf. Ser. Vol. 154, Tenth Cambridge Workshop on Cool Stars, Stellar Systems and the Sun, ed R. A. Donahue & J. A. Bookbinder (San Francisco: ASP), CD–741 (astro-ph/9709005)

Breger, M., & Montgomery, M. 2000, ASP Conf. Ser. Vol. 210, Sixth Vienna Workshop in Astrophysics: Delta Scuti and Related Stars

Brown, T. M., & Gilliland, R. L. 1994, ARA&A, 33, 37

Buzasi, D. L., Catanzarite, J., Laher, R., Conrow, T., Shupe, D., Gautier III, T. N., & Kreidl, T. 2000, ApJ, 532, L133

Christensen-Dalsgaard, J. 1984, in Workshop on Space Research in Stellar Activity and Variability, ed A. Mangeney & F. Praderie (Meudon: Observatoire de Paris), 11

Frandsen, S., Jones, A., Kjeldsen, H., Viskum, M., Hjorth, J., Andersen, N. H., & Thomsen, B. 1995, A&A, 301, 123

Gough, D. O. 1985, Nature, 314, 14

Gough, D. O. 1996, The Observatory, 116, 313. Erratum: 117, 72

Guzik, J. A. 2000, in Variable Stars as Essential Astrophysical Tools, ed C. Ibanoglu (Dordrecht: Kluwer), 213

Handler, G. 2000, in ASP Conf. Ser. Vol. 203, IAU Coll. 176: The Impact of Large-Scale Surveys on Pulsating Star Research, ed L. Szabados & D. Kurtz (San Francisco: ASP), 408

Heasley, J. N., Janes, K., Labonte, B., Guenther, D., Mickey, D., & Demarque, P. 1996, PASP, 108, 385

Høg, E., & Petersen, J. O. 1997, A&A, 323, 827

Kjeldsen, H., & Bedding, T. R. 1995, A&A, 293, 87

Kjeldsen, H., Bedding, T. R., Viskum, M., & Frandsen, S. 1995, AJ 109, 1313

Kjeldsen, H., Bedding, T. R., & Christensen-Dalsgaard, J., 2000, in ASP Conf. Ser. Vol. 203, IAU Coll. 176: The Impact of Large-Scale Surveys on Pulsating Star Research, ed L. Szabados & D. Kurtz (San Francisco: ASP), 73 (http://astro.ifa.au.dk/MONS)

Kurtz, D. W. 1986, in IAU Symp. 118, Instrumentation and Research Programmes for Small Telescopes, ed J. B. Hearnshaw & P. L. Cottrell (Dordrecht: Reidel), 251

Martic, M., Schmitt, J., Lebrun, J.-C., Barban, C., Connes, P., Bouchy, F., Michel, E., Baglin, A., Appourchaux, T., & Bertaux, J.-L., 1999, A&A, 351, 993

Matthews, J. M., Kurtz, D. W., & Martinez, P. 1999, ApJ, 511, 422

Matthews, J. M. et al. 2000, in ASP Conf. Ser. Vol. 203, IAU Coll. 176: The Impact of Large-Scale Surveys on Pulsating Star Research, ed L. Szabados & D. Kurtz (San Francisco: ASP), 74 (http://www.astro.ubc.ca/MOST)

McNamara, D. 1997, PASP, 109, 1221

McNamara, D. H. 2000, PASP, 112, 1096

Petersen, J. O. 1998, in The First MONS Workshop: Science with a Small Space Telescope, ed H. Kjeldsen & T. R. Bedding (Aarhus: Aarhus Universitet), 119

Petersen, J. O., & Høg, E. 1998, A&A, 331, 989

Trimble, V. 1995, PASP, 107, 1012