text:
# Mapping the Galactic Halo IV. Finding Distant Giants Reliably with the Washington System

## 1 Introduction

Photometric searches over wide areas for rare, distant giants in the Galactic halo are now a reality, thanks to the advent of wide-field CCD systems. One particularly useful photometric system is the Washington system (Canterna, 1976; Harris and Canterna, 1979). Since Geisler (1984) added the DDO “51” filter to allow discrimination between late-type dwarfs and giants and re-calibrated its \[Fe/H\] indicator, this system has steadily gained in popularity. Its broad-band filters and strong abundance sensitivity for late-type giants (Geisler et al., 1991; Paltoglou and Bell, 1994) mean that it was well-suited to studies of objects of known distance such as open and globular cluster giants. In these cases there is little need for luminosity discrimination.

However, when seeking rare objects such as halo giants, which are seen through a thick veil of foreground disk stars, luminosity discrimination is vital. The Mg $`b`$/MgH feature near 5170Å is strong in late-type dwarfs and weak in giants. The “51” filter (with $`\lambda _c`$ = 5130Å and $`\mathrm{\Delta }\lambda `$ = 154Å) is centered on this feature. It works well for discriminating between late G/K dwarfs of solar or near-solar metallicity and G/K giants. The addition of this filter has allowed the use of the Washington system in surveys for late G and K giants where foreground contamination by disk dwarfs is a problem. This is superior to other photometric methods of identifying giants such as DDO or Strömgren photometry (McClure and Forrester, 1981; Bond, 1980) because only one filter has a narrow passband, and it it not necessary to observe in the ultraviolet. Surveys well-suited to the Washington system include:

* studies of giant stars in clusters at low latitude, where it is now possible to remove foreground dwarf non-members (eg Geisler, Claria and Minniti, 1997)
* surveys for rare field giants of the outer halo (Morrison et al. 2000a, Paper I hereafter; Majewski et al. 2000b)
* surveys for extra-tidal giants from Galactic dwarf satellites (Majewski et al., 1999, 2000a)

The last two types of survey make contributions to our understanding of the formation and subsequent evolution of the Galaxy. Distant halo field giants, such as the one recently discovered by our survey at 90 kpc (Olszewski et al., 2000) provide in-situ probes of the outer halo, and are also important probes of the Galactic potential (Zaritsky et al., 1989). But their identification as giants must be solid in order to make them useful – the spatial distribution and kinematics of local halo dwarfs will contribute little to our understanding of the outer Galaxy. Indeed, misidentification will lead to serious errors.

We began work on this paper in order to understand our low success rate at identifying halo giants for $`V`$ magnitudes fainter than 18. For brighter magnitudes our success rate, confirmed by spectroscopic follow-up, is better than 90%, but this falls precipitously to 24% for $`V`$ magnitudes between 18 and 19 (Dohm-Palmer et al., 2000), despite comparably good mean photometric uncertainties for these fainter stars.

A detailed investigation into the limitations of the Washington luminosity classification may also cast light on some surprising claims from the surveys around dwarf satellites of the Milky Way. For example, Majewski et al. (2000a) have claimed detection of large numbers of extra-tidal stars in the Carina dwarf spheroidal galaxy. Such a large extra-tidal population, if confirmed, has implications not only for galaxy evolution but also for our understanding of the dark matter content of the dSph satellites. However, these surveys extend to much fainter magnitudes than previously possible, and it is important to understand possible contamination by foreground and background objects, and the role of photometric errors, at such faint levels.

Our essential result is that there are two major problems with the Washington luminosity classification: first, very metal-poor foreground subdwarfs are indistinguishable photometrically from halo giants; second, photometric errors can scatter disk dwarfs into the halo giant region of the $`MT_2`$/$`M51`$ diagnostic plot.

In Section 2 we discuss possible contaminants of halo giant candidates in the $`MT_2`$/$`M51`$ diagram: disk and halo dwarfs, galaxies and QSOs. With accurate $`M51`$ photometry, the only serious contaminants are the very metal-poor halo dwarfs whose weak lines make them indistinguishable photometrically from halo giants. We derive a luminosity function specifically for such metal-poor halo dwarfs and use it, with a simple halo model, to predict the number of subdwarfs per deg2 in different directions in the Galaxy.

Although foreground disk and thick disk dwarfs are neglible contaminants if accurate photometry is obtained, the high density of these stars, especially at low latitudes, makes the number scattered into the giant region of the $`MT_2`$/$`M51`$ diagram a sensitive function of photometric error. In Section 3 we investigate this in detail, and describe the double effect of large errors on giant searches: not only are dwarfs scattered into the giant region, but genuine giants are scattered out.

In Section 4 we use what we have learned about giant selection to examine our own pencil-beam survey of at high galactic latitudes (Dohm-Palmer et al., 2000). The BTC subset (obtained using the Big Throughput Camera on the CTIO 4m in April 1999) covers 12.7 square degrees, and has spectroscopic follow-up of approximately half of the giant candidates (Morrison et al., 2000b). We find that foreground subdwarfs are the principal cause of our low detection efficiency for giants below $`V=18`$, and describe our plans to optimize future searches for the faint, red giants of the extreme outer halo so that fewer subdwarfs are misidentified as giants.

In Section 5 we discuss the survey of Majewski et al. (2000a) (MOPKJG hereafter) of approximately two square degrees centered on the Carina dwarf spheroidal galaxy. Their study found a large number ($``$100) of giant candidates outside the tidal radius of Irwin and Hatzidimitriou (1995), but they were only able to obtain follow-up spectra of three of the brightest extra-tidal candidates. The photometric errors of the MPOKJG data are more typical of photographic than of CCD photometry, and we discuss the possible effect of these errors on the giant selection.

## 2 Use of the 51 Filter – Disk Dwarfs and Other Problems

### 2.1 Foreground Disk Dwarfs

Geisler (1984) showed the sensitivity of the $`M51`$ index to luminosity for late G and K stars, and this was confirmed and expanded by Paltoglou and Bell (1994) using synthetic spectra. The index loses sensitivity to luminosity blueward of $`MT_2`$ = 1.1. It holds almost no luminosity information blueward of $`MT_2`$ = 1.0, due to the disappearance of the MgH feature in dwarfs at this temperature. This can be seen clearly in Figure 7 of Paltoglou and Bell (1994) for $`T_1T_2<`$0.4 ($`MT_2`$ $`<1.0`$).

The $`M51`$ index works well for discrimination between halo giants and foreground dwarfs of the thin and thick disk (mean \[Fe/H\] of –0.2 and –0.5, McWilliam (1990); Carney, Latham and Laird (1989)). The separation between the \[Fe/H\]= –0.5 dwarf and the \[Fe/H\]= –1.0 giant lines ranges from 0.075 to 0.23 mags at $`MT_2`$ = 1.1 and 1.8, respectively. Only large photometric errors (explored further in Section 3 below) will cause thin or thick disk dwarfs to appear in the giant region. We define our giant selection region as that bounded by $`MT_2`$ = 1.1 (where the index loses sensitivity) and 1.8 (where the Washington abundance calibration stops) and $`M51`$ = –0.02 and 0.09, but excluding the area below the line between ($`MT_2`$,$`M51`$) = (1.1,0.02) and (1.2,–0.02). (The giant selection region is illustrated below in Figures 4 and 15.

### 2.2 Foreground Subdwarfs

As we noted in Paper I, metal-poor dwarfs of \[Fe/H\]$``$ –2.0 overlap the giant region in the $`M51`$ vs. $`MT_2`$ diagram, and follow-up spectroscopy is needed to weed them from the sample. Few bright examples of such stars are known, due to their intrinsic rarity and low luminosity, and at the time of writing Paper I we had only obtained spectra of one such star, G30-52, \[Fe/H\]=–2.06, (Carney et al., 2000), which lies at the extreme blue end of our selection region. Since then we have obtained spectra of several more very metal-poor K dwarfs, which are shown in Figure 1. All but the most weak-lined star, G160-30, have metallicity determinations from high-dispersion spectroscopy, whose sources are given in Table 1.

We have made an initial estimate222using synthetic spectra computed by one of us (JEN) from our low resolution spectra and find the metallicity of G160-30 to be \[Fe/H\]= –3.0. This star is particularly useful for calibrating our survey because of its relatively cool temperature (($`BV`$)0=1.0, using the reddening estimates of Schlegel et al. (1998) and the photometry of Carney et al. (2000)). At first sight it is difficult to distinguish between the spectra of G160-30 and that of a very metal-poor giant such as NGC 5053-D (see Figure 3 of Paper I). We will discuss this further in Morrison et al. (2000b), where we will show that the ratio of strengths of neutral and ionized Ca lines discriminates between such giants and dwarfs in spectra of sufficient S/N.

In Paper I we made an estimate of the number of subdwarfs with \[Fe/H\] less than –2.0 in our survey’s magnitude range using the Bahcall-Soniera model (Bahcall and Soniera, 1984) scaled by the proportion of halo stars with \[Fe/H\]$`<`$ –2.0. In the Appendix we derive a luminosity function (LF) specifically for the halo subdwarfs which appear in our giant selection region. Since the determination of the halo field LF of Bahcall and Casertano (1986) only contains 51 stars over all abundances in the absolute magnitude range of interest, we cannot derive an accurate LF from the metal-poor subset of the Bahcall and Casertano (1986) data. Thus we choose to use accurate LFs constructed from HST observations of four very metal-poor globular clusters, and use the HST color-magnitude diagram of NGC 6397 King et al. (1998) to transform from $`M_V`$ to $`VI`$ and hence $`MT_2`$. Details are given in the Appendix.

How distant will these contaminating subdwarfs be? Using the deep $`V`$,$`VI`$ color-magnitude diagram of NGC 6397 of King et al. (1998), transformed to the standard Landolt system following Holtzman et al. (1995) and a distance modulus of $`(mM)_V`$=12.36, we find that $`MT_2`$=1.2 corresponds to $`M_V`$=7.1. In a survey such as ours, currently limited to $`V<19`$ by spectroscopic follow-up, this corresponds to distances up to 2.5 kpc from the Sun.

Our halo dwarf model assumes the luminosity function given in the Appendix in Table 3. The halo’s spatial distribution is modelled using a power-law exponent of –3.0 and a moderate flattening of b/a=0.6 — values confirmed by halo turnoff stars found in our survey (Morrison et al., 2000a). Figure 2 shows its predictions for our giant selection box. The number of subdwarfs is a strong function of magnitude, reaching tens per deg2 for $`V20`$.

### 2.3 Binary Stars

Since up to 50% of all stars may be binaries, it is worth considering whether two stars in a binary system can masquerade as a single giant. This is trivially true of a binary system consisting of a giant and a faint dwarf companion, since the giant luminosity will dominate. However, it is a little less clear whether a binary system composed of two main sequence stars could have $`MT_2`$ and $`M51`$ colors within the giant region.

To test this we took the synthetic $`MT_2`$ and $`M51`$ colors of Paltoglou and Bell (1994) and of Bessell (2000) for stars with $`T_{eff}`$ ranging from 4000 to 10000 K, $`logg`$ from 4.5 to 0.7, and \[Fe/H\] from 0 to –1.0, and combined them into simulated binary systems using the absolute magnitudes given in Bessell (2000). Since Paltoglou and Bell (1994) only give colors for stars from 4000 to 7000 K, and Bessell (2000) does not give $`M51`$ colors, we set the $`M51`$ color of all stars hotter than 7000K at 0.017, which is the color expected for a spectrum with no features in the Mg $`b`$/MgH region. The only stars for which the binary system had both $`MT_2`$ and $`M51`$ in our giant region were those for which one component of the binary system already had colors within the giant region. This is because (1) the bluer component of a binary made of two main sequence stars will be brighter and so dominate the $`MT_2`$ color, and (2) it is not possible in a spectrum without emission lines to have $`M51`$ significantly higher than 0.017 unless one star is extremely metal-poor.

Thus contamination by binary stars whose constituent stars are both on the main sequence is negligible.

### 2.4 Galaxies and QSOs

Because of the emission lines and redshifted features in galaxy and QSO spectra, they can be found both in the giant region of the $`M51`$/$`MT_2`$ plot, and also in regions not occupied by normal stars. The synthetic $`M51`$ colors of Paltoglou and Bell (1994) for very metal-poor stars reach no higher than $`M51`$=0.05, corresponding to the value that a blackbody spectrum would have. Thus, apart from photometric errors, we would not expect to see any normal or metal-poor stars with $`M51`$ $`>`$ 0.05. The only other possibility is a spectrum which has less light, on average, in the wider M band than in the narrow 51 band close to its center. This can happen if absorption lines in a galaxy’s spectrum are redshifted into the M band, or if an emission line in a galaxy or QSO spectrum is redshifted into the 51 band.

Figure 3 shows the spectrum of a BAL QSO identified in our survey, with the $`M`$ and 51 filter passbands overlaid333the 51 filter passband should be shifted a few Å to the blue to compensate for the fast beam of the CTIO 4m prime focus.. The QSO spectrum is, to first order, featureless over the $`M`$ passband, although part of the broad emission line at the blue end of the 51 passband would have been included in this filter’s observations, giving the same or slightly more light per Å in the 51 filter than the wider $`M`$ band.

In addition, the Washington colors of some normal galaxies are similar to those of metal-poor stars, so we will find a small number of galaxies in other regions of the $`MT_2`$ vs. $`M51`$ diagram. Our survey uses data from mosaic CCD cameras (the Big Throughput Camera and the NOAO mosaics) on the KPNO and CTIO 4m telescopes and the Burrell Schmidt. We are particularly vulnerable to contamination by galaxies in our Schmidt data, where the large pixels make it more difficult to distinguish between stars and galaxies. There is still a small chance of contamination by compact galaxies and QSOs even in our better-sampled BTC and mosaic data. We discuss this further in Section 4.

## 3 Photometric Errors

Use of the $`M51`$ index for luminosity classification requires accurate colors for two reasons. First, the separation between giants and dwarfs in the $`M51`$ vs. $`MT_2`$ plot is not large: $``$ 0.15 mag between solar abundance dwarfs and giants for $`MT_2`$ $`>`$ 1.3 ($`BV`$$`>`$ 1.0) and less for bluer stars. Although metal-poor giants lie further away from the dwarf locus because of their weak Mg $`b`$ lines, this advantage is offset by the fact that as we move to fainter magnitudes, foreground dwarfs become dominated by thick disk stars, whose lower metallicity (\[Fe/H\]$`0.5`$, Carney, Latham and Laird (1989)) moves them toward the giant region. Second, distant giants are strongly outnumbered by foreground disk stars, so we need to cope with the effect of 2$`\sigma `$ and even 3$`\sigma `$ errors on the dwarf colors.

We use the accurate Washington photometry obtained with the Big Throughput Camera (BTC) on the CTIO 4m telescope in April 1999 (Dohm-Palmer et al., 2000) to illustrate the effect of photometric errors on giant/dwarf classification. This pencil-beam data covers 12.7 square degrees, with latitude ranging from $`b`$ = 25 to 72. For $`V<19`$, the median error in $`MT_2`$ was 0.012 mag, and for $`M51`$, 0.013 mag.

We chose a subset of these data with low errors using a magnitude range of $`V=1718.5`$ and a maximum error of 0.02 mag in both $`MT_2`$ and $`M51`$. This subset will be used as an approximation of “zero-error” data which will then be degraded with successively larger photometric errors by adding a number chosen from a gaussian error distribution. The left-hand panel of Figure 4 shows these data, with the regions used by our collaboration and Majewski et al. (2000b)(MOKP hereafter) for giant selection marked. Our giant region is significantly smaller and does not extend as far blueward as the MOKP region. It can be seen that the most numerous stars in this color range have $`MT_2`$ between 0.7 and 1.2 ($`BV`$$``$ 0.5–0.9). These stars are mostly disk dwarfs (Bahcall and Soniera, 1984).

We simulated photometric errors by adding gaussian444Often in astronomical datasets we do not have detailed information on the error distribution shape. In general, an error distribution with larger wings will produce more bogus giants, and a distribution with smaller wings than a gaussian will have less effect. errors to the observed colors in this low-error subset. The color error in $`M51`$ and in $`MT_2`$ was chosen randomly from a gaussian distribution with either $`\sigma `$ = 0.05 (middle panel) and 0.10 (right-hand panel) mags. It can be seen that even 0.05 mag color errors move stars into both “giant” boxes, in particular into the region of the MOKP box with $`MT_2`$ $`<`$ 1.0. Color errors of 0.10 mag produce large numbers of bogus giants.

### 3.1 Where Do the Stars Go?

To quantify the effect of photometric errors on our giant classifications, we need to explore two effects: genuine giants removed from the giant region, and dwarfs and other stars scattered into the giant region by color errors.

The first effect is simpler to quantify because it does not depend on the position in the Galaxy of the field surveyed. Figure 5 illustrates the movement of genuine giants in the $`M51`$/$`MT_2`$ diagram for the two classification schemes, assuming that each color was degraded by an amount drawn from a Gaussian with $`\sigma `$ = 0.05 mag. Our smaller giant region leads to a higher loss rate of giants from the box. Figure 6 summarizes the percentage of giants lost due to errors, as a function of the color error. It can be seen that even for color errors as low as 0.02 mag, around 20% of genuine giants will be lost. The most numerous (and least luminous) giant stars lie close to the blue boundary of our giant box at $`MT_2`$ = 1.1, and the majority of stars will be lost from this region. This effect, and its dependence on color and absolute magnitude, will need to be taken into account when using halo giants found with $`M51`$ to measure the density distribution of the outer halo.

The leakage of foreground dwarfs into the giant regions is more complex to quantify, as it depends on the numbers of dwarfs close to the boundaries of the giant box. This is a strong function of galactic latitude in particular, since the path length of lower-latitude lines of sight through the disk is higher. Figure 7 illustrates the regions of the color-color diagram where bogus giants originate for both classification schemes, in the case of 0.05 mag errors. (Only stars that will be observed in the fiant selection regions will be followed.) For our classification scheme, most of the interlopers are dwarf stars with $`MT_2`$ = 1.0–1.3 ($`BV`$= 0.7–1.0). For the MOKP scheme, many more stars are scattered into the giant region. In particular, the blue extension for $`M51`$ $`>0`$ causes problems. The vast majority of stars that find their way into the giant region have $`MT_2`$ $`<`$ 1.0. For stars this blue, the $`M51`$ index has little or no sensitivity to luminosity, as the Mg $`b`$/MgH lines become weak for dwarfs and giants alike. The convergence of the dwarf and giant sequences can clearly be seen in Figure 7 of Paltoglou and Bell (1994) for $`T_1T_2<`$ 0.4 ($`MT_2`$ $`<1.0`$), and Geisler’s original (1984) paper does not even show data for $`T_1T_2<`$ 0.38.

Figures 8 and 9 summarize the balance between the number of giants remaining in the giant region and the number of dwarfs moved into the giant region by photometric error, as a function of color error and galactic latitude. For these simulations we used the BTC data without error cuts, in the magnitude range V=16–19, which is typically the magnitude range we use to select giants in our survey (as spectroscopic follow-up becomes difficult fainter than V=19 on 4m-class telescopes). The absence of error cuts is because we need to measure how many dwarf stars are in the correct color and magnitude ranges to be moved into the giant region via photometric errors, and limiting the data selected via our errors will lead to incompleteness in our sample. (Note that at these magnitudes the BTC data are essentially 100% complete.) We define a star as a dwarf if it is below the solar abundance giant line in the $`MT_2`$ vs. $`M51`$ diagram or if it is bluer than $`MT_2`$=1.0. This latter requirement will include some blue giants, but the $`M51`$ color holds no information about luminosity this blue. In order to give a feeling for how important this is with respect to the actual numbers of halo giants likely to be found (in a smooth halo) we have used the predictions of the halo model of Morrison (1993) for each latitude bin, and the same magnitude range. (These predictions agree in general with the numbers of halo giants that we have found in our survey fields.) The number of halo giants falls as the error increases because more giants get scattered out of the halo region.

It can be seen from the plots that, especially for low latitudes, large numbers of dwarfs are scattered into the giant box. For our classification scheme, the 50% success point where the number of dwarfs scattered in equals the number of giants not scattered out of the giant box occurs for color errors between 0.035 and 0.045 mag. For the larger giant box of MOKP, the effect is extreme – bogus giants outnumber genuine ones for color errors greater than 0.02 mag The number of giant candidates that are actually dwarfs can reach more than 100 per square degree for large errors and lower latitudes. It is clear that spectroscopic follow-up of every giant candidate to confirm its luminosity is vitally important. Without it, spurious conclusions will surely result.

With this background behind us, we now consider implications for our own survey and that of MOPKJG.

## 4 Example 1. Spectroscopic Followup of our BTC Data

Here we describe our spectroscopic follow-up of the BTC imaging data of 12.7 square degrees (Dohm-Palmer et al., 2000), focussing on the dwarfs and other contaminants that we identified. In a future paper (Morrison et al., 2000b) we will describe our spectroscopic calibrations to measure luminosity and metallicity in detail. In three observing runs on the KPNO 4m telescope (in May 1999, January 2000 and March 2000) we observed and classified 57 halo giant candidates, with V magnitudes ranging from $`V_0=15.619.2`$. This constitutes approximately 50% of our giant candidates in the BTC data.

One candidate (with $`V_0`$=18.7) was a QSO; so far we have found no galaxies in our BTC data, due to the good spatial sampling of the BTC CCDs.

### 4.1 Foreground Dwarfs

We have estimated the metallicity of the foreground dwarfs that we identified, by comparing their Mg $`b`$/MgH line strength at the observed $`MT_2`$ color with that of the dwarf and subdwarf standards observed on these runs (see Table 1 above and Table 2 of Morrison et al. (2000a)). This allowed us to classify them into subdwarfs with \[Fe/H\]$`<`$ –2.0 or metal-richer dwarfs and subdwarfs. Figure 8 of Dohm-Palmer et al. (2000) shows their position in the $`MT_2`$ vs. $`M51`$ diagram. Most of the foreground stars that we identified were metal-poor subdwarfs, confirming the efficacy of our luminosity discrimination using accurate $`MT_2`$ and $`M51`$ colors. Five stars out of the 57 were classified as dwarfs with \[Fe/H\] greater than –2.0: two of these were observed before we fully understood the strong effect of errors in scattering dwarfs into our giant box. Since these two stars have errors in both $`MT_2`$ and $`M51`$ of 0.04–0.05 mag, it is not unexpected in the light of Section 3 above that they are foreground dwarfs. The other three dwarf stars have low errors and $`V_0>`$ 18, and this is consistent with the results of Figure 8: even with errors of 0.02 mag in both colors (a little higher than our mean errors at this magnitude), approximately one dwarf per square degree will be scattered into our giant region. (We have observed approximately six square degrees spectroscopically in this field.)

### 4.2 Extreme Subdwarfs

Out of the 57 halo giant candidates observed, 22 were subdwarfs. (Our giant selection criteria have evolved as we learned more about metal-poor subdwarfs, so some of these stars have colors which place them outside our giant selection box.) Figure 10 shows the histogram of V magnitudes of the 57 halo candidates observed, with the histogram of subdwarf magnitudes overlaid. The magnitude distribution of halo candidates observed reflects the weather and seeing during our 4m spectroscopic runs, rather than the true distribution of halo giants. The sample size is small, but it is still possible to see that the proportion of subdwarfs increases as we go to fainter magnitudes.

Figure 11 shows some examples of spectra of subdwarf stars identified in our BTC survey. Photometry and coordinates for these stars is given in Table 2. Spectral features similar to those of the subdwarf standards shown in Figure 1 are clearly seen: a weak MgH feature and strong CaI 4227 line.

Star l354.18b+66.32 in the middle panel of Figure 11 is a particularly interesting one. Its color and spectrum are similar to that of the subdwarf standard G251-53, with \[Fe/H\]= –1.9. The synthetic colors of Paltoglou and Bell (1994) predict that this star should have an $`M51`$ color several hundredths of a magnitude lower than the bottom of our giant selection box, and its $`M51`$ value (–0.041) confirms this prediction. This adds confidence that the estimate of the luminosity function for halo subdwarfs found in our giant box in the Appendix, based on the synthetic colors of Paltoglou and Bell (1994), should be reasonably accurate.

We can make a more direct test of the accuracy of our subdwarf luminosity function by comparing its predictions of the numbers of subdwarfs we should find in our BTC data with the actual number found. Now we restrict consideration to halo giant candidates inside our giant selection box with photometric \[Fe/H\] estimate less than –1.0, and limit the magnitude range to $`V_0<19.0`$. Of the 53 BTC fields, 14 have complete spectroscopic follow-up of giant candidates, and 8 subdwarfs were identified. Another 13 fields have no giant candidates at all. Assigning the correct percentage of “no giant candidate” fields to the spectroscopic follow-up group, we find that 4.45 square degrees have been completely surveyed for giants. This gives a subdwarf frequency of 1.8$`\pm `$0.6 per square degree. The fields with complete spectroscopic follow-up have a mean (l,b) = (281,47), so the middle line in Figure 2 is a good match. This predicts 2.6 subdwarfs per square degree in our giant selection box down to $`V`$=19, in good agreement with our actual value, once errors in the local halo density are taken into account.

In summary, our spectroscopic follow-up has confirmed the importance of accurate photometry for giant selection using the Washington system. In addition, the number of subdwarfs found in our fields is in agreement with the predictions of the model described in Section 2.2.1 and the Appendix. Particularly for $`V`$ magnitudes fainter than 18, photometric identification of halo giants is not enough: spectroscopic confirmation of their luminosity is very important.

### 4.3 Efficiently Selecting Faint Giants

If we observe every giant candidate that appears in the giant region of Figure 15 (see Appendix) spectroscopically for V fainter than 18, we will find three subdwarfs for every genuine halo giant. The stars that are of particular interest in this magnitude range are the high-luminosity giants which help trace the extreme outer halo, like our star l304.49b+60.51 (Olszewski et al., 2000). With accurate photometry, it is possible to make our spectroscopic follow-up more efficient by utilizing the sensitivity of the $`M51`$ color to luminosity.

Figure 12 shows the halo giants and subdwarfs identified by spectroscopic follow-up, with giants coded by absolute magnitude. It can be seen that the most luminous giants are not only the reddest, but also occupy the upper region of the giant box, with $`M51`$ $`>`$ 0.01, while the subdwarfs cluster toward the bottom left.

For our survey, if we restrict our giant selection box to the upper right of the original region for $`V>18`$, we are able to optimize our efficiency of giant selection without missing any of the most distant giants in our sample. For data that reach fainter levels, this ”new, clean” region becomes contaminated with intrinsically fainter, redder subdwarfs.

## 5 Example 2. The MOPKJG Survey of the Carina Dwarf Spheroidal Galaxy

Majewski et al. (2000a) present Washington M, T2, 51 photometry of a field of area $``$2 deg2 centered on the Carina dwarf spheroidal galaxy, and use both the $`MT_2`$ vs. $`M51`$ diagram and the locus of the Carina red giant branch in the $`M_0`$ vs. $`MT_2`$ diagram to identify a large number ($`100`$) of Carina-associated giant candidates outside the tidal radius of Irwin and Hatzidimitriou (1995). These stars range in magnitude from $`M_0`$=17.8–20.8 ($`V`$17.5–20.5). They obtained confirmatory spectroscopy of three of the brightest extratidal giant candidates, which are 1.4$`\sigma `$, 1.4$`\sigma `$ and 2.3$`\sigma `$ outside the Irwin and Hatzidimitriou (1995) tidal radius, using their quoted error of 3.6 arcmin. Based on the number of extratidal giant candidates, they derive a surprisingly high mass-loss rate: 27% of the total mass of Carina per Gyr.

Because their survey covers a relatively small area, contamination by subdwarfs in their giant region is not a significant problem. We make a conservative estimate of the number of subdwarfs in their giant region by using the luminosity function derived in the Appendix for our smaller giant region: the halo model predicts that 14 subdwarfs will be found per square degree to V=20.5 ($`M20.8`$).

### 5.1 Effect of Photometric Errors

Carina has quite a low galactic latitude ($`b=22`$) so there are large numbers of disk stars in the foreground, and the potential exists for a significant number to scatter into the giant region of the $`MT_2`$/$`M51`$ diagram. The accuracy of the Majewski et al. (2000a) photometry is not high. This is caused in great part by their short exposure times: their C40 telescope exposure times in $`M`$ and $`T_2`$ were almost the same as our 4m BTC exposure times, 15 times shorter when the difference in aperture is taken into account. (Their 51 exposures were a factor of $``$3 shorter after correcting for telescope aperture.) MOPKJG work more than a magnitude fainter than our survey, to $`M=20.8`$ ($`V`$20.5). In addition, the C100 data suffered from such large PSF variations that even a quadratic variable PSF in DAOphot was unable to completely correct them.

To deal with these large errors they restrict consideration to stars with errors in all filters less than 0.10 mag. Thus it is possible for stars with color errors as high as 0.14 mag in $`M51`$ or $`MT_2`$ to be included in their sample. In Figure 9 we showed that at latitudes of 30–40 degrees, significantly higher than the latitude of Carina, almost 200 dwarf stars per square degree are scattered into the MOKP giant box for color errors of 0.10 mag. Thus the additional cut using the Carina giant branch is very important.

MOPKJG estimate the contribution of “background” objects by successively displacing the Carina giant branch region to brighter magnitudes, and counting how many stars which satisfy their $`M51`$/$`MT_2`$ cut are found in the shifted giant branch region. Their decision to only shift the box to brighter magnitudes is forced upon them by the serious incompleteness of their photometry at magnitudes fainter than M=20.8. This is unfortunate, because the number of interlopers in the giant region increases sharply at fainter magnitudes, so their background estimates will be systematically too small.

The magnitude range of interest for Carina giants is $`M_0`$=17.8–20.8. Here, the majority of the C100 photometry has errors ranging up to 0.15 mag in $`M`$ and 51 and 0.25 mag in $`T_2`$. The C40 data has larger errors: up to 0.40 mag in 51, 0.25 mag in $`T_2`$ and 0.3 mag in $`M`$. With an error cut of 0.10 mag per filter and a significant number of stars having errors in each filter close to this number, color errors of up to 0.14 mag are likely. We have extended our simulations of the likely number of foreground dwarfs that will be moved into the MOKP giant selection box in the $`M51`$/$`MT_2`$ diagram by adding the same selection as was used by MOPKJG (the CMD bounding box outlined in their Figure 8) to isolate stars at the right color and magnitude to be on Carina’s giant branch. Figure 13 shows our results. It can be seen that with color errors in the range of 0.05 to 0.10 mag, dwarf contamination is significantly higher than that claimed by MOPKJG, whose largest extratidal background estimate was 22 stars per square degree. Even the extra cut using the position of Carina’s red giant branch would not rid the extratidal giant sample of many interlopers.

In summary, more spectroscopic follow-up is needed to confirm the claim of Majewski et al. (2000a) that Carina is losing 27% of its mass per Gyr. With photometric errors of 0.10 mag, the typical star in the giant region will be a photometric error. Brighter stars, such as the three observed spectroscopically, will have smaller photometric errors and will in general be giants if they are in the giant region. However, only one of these is more than 2$`\sigma `$ away from the Irwin and Hatzidimitriou (1995) tidal radius. A larger spectroscopic sample is needed. The discovery of one extratidal bright giant tells us nothing about the discovery fraction of fainter giants.

## 6 Summary

Washington photometry, with the addition of the 51 filter, is a powerful method of finding distant halo giants. We find that at the faintest magnitudes probed by our survey, our giant selection efficiency falls, and we make a careful examination of possible problems with the Washington giant classification to improve future surveys. We show that accurate photometry (color errors less than 0.03 mag) is essential to cut down on the scattering of the numerous foreground dwarfs into the giant region in the $`M51`$/$`MT_2`$ color-color plot. We have made estimates of the contamination of giant candidates by very metal-poor halo dwarfs by deriving a new luminosity function specifically for the subdwarfs which mimic halo giants in the $`M51`$/$`MT_2`$ diagram, and using it in a simple halo model.

We used our results on luminosity discrimination with the Washington system to examine two recent surveys: our own survey of 12.7 square degrees at high galactic latitudes (Morrison et al., 2000a; Dohm-Palmer et al., 2000), and the study of Majewski et al. (2000a) of fields centered on the Carina dwarf spheroidal galaxy, which finds over 100 Carina-associated giant candidates outside its tidal radius.

For surveys such as our own of the halo field, very metal-poor halo dwarfs are the major source of contamination of candidate giant samples, and we propose using a smaller region of the $`M51`$/$`MT_2`$ diagram to optimise spectroscopic follow-up at the faint magnitudes where the subdwarfs dominate. The survey of Majewski et al. (2000a) has spectroscopic follow-up only for three of the brightest “extra-tidal” giant candidates, and we show that their photometric errors, which will increase as stars become fainter, can have a very serious effect on their giant classification.

In summary, spectroscopic follow-up of giant stars identified using the Washington system is vital. If one wishes to make statistical corrections for the number of bogus giants caused by photometric errors, it is important to quantify accurately the photometric errors in the data, both in terms of the size of the average error and the shape of the distribution.

We would like to thank the referee, Bruce Carney, for helpful comments. This work was supported by NSF grants AST 96-19490 to HLM, AST 95-28367, AST96-19632 and AST98-20608 to MM, and AST 96-19524 to EWO.
APPENDIX: Luminosity Function for Halo Dwarfs with \[Fe/H\] $`<`$ -2.0 We have derived a luminosity function (LF) for halo G and K dwarfs with \[Fe/H\] $`<`$ –2.0 using LFs for four metal-poor globular clusters derived from HST WFPC2 color-magnitude diagrams by Piotto, Cool and King (1997), and the splendid $`V`$,$`VI`$ color-magnitude diagram of NGC6397 of King et al. (1998), transformed to the standard Landolt system using the transformations of Holtzman et al. (1995). We need to derive a LF separately for the metal-poor stars – its slope will be different for the halo as a whole and for its most metal-poor stars. This can be seen in the compilation of accurate globular cluster LFs of Paresce and De Marchi (2000), where for $`M_I`$=5–8, clusters such as NGC6397 have relatively more stars at the faint end than metal-richer clusters such as NGC6752 and NGC104. Also, since we are interested in the luminosity distribution at a given color, we need to use the color-magnitude diagram of a metal-poor cluster to decide which absolute magnitudes appear in our $`MT_2`$ color range for stars with \[Fe/H\]$`<`$ –2.0, where our ability to discriminate them via $`M51`$ begins to fail. Although it would be more direct to use a subsample of the Bahcall and Casertano (1986) field star data with \[Fe/H\]$`<2.0`$ to derive this LF, the Bahcall and Casertano (1986) sample is too small. It is based on only 51 stars in our magnitude range of interest ($`M_V`$=6–9), and is particularly poorly sampled at the bright end. Thus we use accurate LFs derived from HST photometry of metal-poor globular clusters, where there are sufficient stars to remove concerns about Poisson counting errors. We first compare the LF from a cluster with a similar \[Fe/H\] to the mean of the halo field (Paresce and De Marchi, 2000, NGC 6752) with the Bahcall and Casertano (1986) halo field LF to check for cluster-field differences, as halo field stars may not have formed under identical conditions to globular clusters. (The cluster was observed near its half-light radius where mass segregarion effects are minimal.) It can be seen in Figure 14 that these two LFs are very similar. We then proceed to construct our metal-poor halo LF using the clusters M15, M30, M92 and NGC6397 (whose \[Fe/H\] values range from –1.9 to –2.2, Zinn 1985). Piotto, Cool and King (1997) compare the LFs of their four globular clusters and note that three (M15, M30 and M92) are in good agreement, while the LF of NGC 6397 has fewer stars for $`M_V>7`$ than the other clusters. They calculate multi-mass King models in order to check whether corrections are needed to convert their local LFs to global ones, and conclude that any corrections will not exceed one or two tenths in the logarithm. Thus, since Piotto, Cool and King (1997) were unable to relate the only difference in the LF slopes to mass segregation effects, we choose to simply average the four LFs. Figure 14 shows this LF, compared to that of Bahcall and Casertano (1986) for halo field stars, calculated with a “discovery fraction” of 0.5 (Morrison, 1993). The cluster LFs were normalized to agree with the Bahcall and Casertano (1986) LF for $`M_V`$=6–8. As expected, the metal-poor LF has more stars at the faint end than the Bahcall and Casertano (1986) LF and the NGC 6752 one.

With this luminosity function, it is possible to predict numbers of K dwarfs with \[Fe/H\]$`<`$ –2.0 in the color range corresponding to our giant box, as a function of magnitude and position in the Galaxy. For relatively bright stars ($`V<19`$) we only probe out to distances of 3 kpc at most. As in Paper I, we used the metallicity distribution of Ryan and Norris (1991) to determine that 31% of halo dwarfs have \[Fe/H\]$`<`$ –2.0. The rare subdwarfs with \[Fe/H\]$``$–3.0, such as G160-30, are of particular concern to us because it requires higher signal-to-noise in the follow-up spectrum to determine whether the star is a dwarf or giant. We used the metallicity distribution of Beers (1999), which is complete for metallicities below –2.0, and contains 4754 stars in total, to determine that 3% of all halo dwarfs have \[Fe/H\] $``$ –3.0. (Within the errors, this is consistent with the result of Ryan and Norris (1991).)

It can be seen in Figure 15, which shows the synthetic colors of Paltoglou and Bell (1994) for dwarfs of different metallicity, that our giant selection box overlaps the \[Fe/H\] = –2.0 subdwarfs only at its blue end ($`MT_2`$ = 1.1–1.3) and overlaps the \[Fe/H\]=–3.0 lines for a larger color interval ($`MT_2`$ = 1.1 – 1.6). In other words, for the coolest K dwarfs in our color range, the Mg lines are sufficiently strong that only the most metal-poor (\[Fe/H\]$``$–3.0) appear in our giant selection box, while for the warmer K dwarfs, the lines are weaker and so stars with \[Fe/H\]$``$–2.0 appear in our giant selection box. We took this into account in the construction of the luminosity function for the halo subdwarf model, by scaling the numbers of dwarfs with bluer colors (brighter absolute magnitudes) by 31% and those with redder colors (fainter absolute magnitudes) by 3%.

Table 3 gives the luminosity function for metal-poor subdwarfs derived from the clusters in Piotto, Cool and King (1997), and the luminosity function specifically calculated to match the number of metal-poor dwarfs that will appear in our giant box.


format: text

text:
# Toward a Standard Model of Core Collapse Supernovae

## 1 Introduction

Beginning with the first numerical simulations conducted by Colgate and White, three decades of supernova modeling have established a basic supernova paradigm. The supernova shock wave—formed when the iron core of a massive star collapses gravitationally and rebounds as the core matter exceeds nuclear densities and becomes incompressible—stalls in the iron core as a result of enervating losses to nuclear dissociation and neutrinos. The failure of this “prompt” supernova mechanism sets the stage for a “delayed” mechanism, whereby the shock is reenergized by the intense neutrino flux emerging from the neutrinospheres carrying off the binding energy of the proto-neutron star. This heating is mediated primarily by the absorption of electron neutrinos and antineutrinos on the dissociation-liberated nucleons behind the shock. This past decade has also seen the emergence of multidimensional supernova models, which have investigated the role convection, rotation, and magnetic fields may play in the explosion , in some cases invoking new explosion paradigms.

Although a plausible framework is now in place, fundamental questions about the explosion mechanism remain: Is there more than one mechanism? For example, are some core collapse supernovae neutrino driven while others driven by magnetohydrodynamic jets? Is there one mechanism for one class of massive stars—e.g., stars with progenitor masses between 10 and 20 M—and another for another class of massive stars—e.g., more massive progenitors? Or is the mechanism tailored to each progenitor? For neutrino-driven supernovae, is the neutrino heating sufficient, or are multidimensional effects such as convection and rotation necessary? In addition, any “standard model” for core collapse supernovae must reproduce observed supernova phenomenology, such as neutron star kicks and the polarization of supernova emitted light. To answer these questions and to develop a “standard model,” simulations in one, two, and three dimensions must be performed and coordinated.

## 2 One-Dimensional Supernova Models

The neutrino energy deposition behind the shock depends sensitively not only on the neutrino luminosities but also on the neutrino spectra and angular distributions in the postshock region, necessitating exact multigroup Boltzmann neutrino transport near and above the neutrinospheres or a very good approximation of it. \[Multigroup, i.e., multi-neutrino energy, transport is necessary because the neutrino opacities are strongly energy dependent and low- and high-energy neutrinos may be transported in very different ways (e.g., diffusion versus free streaming) at any given spatial point in the core at any given time.\] Ten percent variations in any of these quantities can make the difference between explosion and failure in supernova models. Past simulations have implemented increasingly sophisticated approximations to multigroup Boltzmann transport, the most sophisticated of which is multigroup flux-limited diffusion. A generic feature of this approximation is that it underestimates the isotropy of the neutrino angular distributions in the heating region and, thus, the heating rate. Therefore, the question arises whether or not failures to produce explosions in past one-dimensional models were the result of the transport approximations employed. It is important to note that, without invoking proto-neutron star (e.g., neutron finger) convection, simulations that implement multigroup flux-limited diffusion do not produce explosions (as we will discuss, the existence and vigor of proto-neutron star convection is a matter of debate).

To begin to address the question posed above, we have been simulating the core collapse, bounce, and postbounce evolution of 13, 15, and 20 M stars, beginning with the precollapse models of Nomoto and Hashimoto, with a new neutrino radiation hydrodynamics code for both Newtonian and general relativistic spherically symmetric flows: AGILE–BOLTZTRAN. BOLTZTRAN is a three-flavor Boltzmann neutrino transport solver, now extended to fully general relativistic flows. In the 13 M Newtonian (gravity) simulation we present here, it is employed in the $`O(v/c)`$ limit. AGILE is a conservative, adaptive mesh, general relativistic hydrodynamics code. Its adaptivity enables us to resolve and seamlessly follow the shock through the iron core into the outer stellar layers.

The equation of state of Lattimer and Swesty (LS EOS) is employed to calculate the local thermodynamic state and nuclear composition of the matter in nuclear statistical equilibrium (NSE). For matter initially in the silicon layer, the temperatures are insufficient to achieve NSE. In this region, the radiation and electron components of the LS EOS are used, while an ideal gas of $`{}_{}{}^{28}\mathrm{Si}`$ is assumed for the nuclear component. For typical hydrodynamic timesteps ($`.1`$ millisecond), silicon burning occurs within a single timestep for T $`5\mathrm{GK}`$; therefore, when a fluid element exceeds a temperature of 5 $`\mathrm{GK}`$ in our simulation, the silicon is instantaneously burned, achieving NSE and releasing thermal energy equal to the difference in nuclear binding energy between $`{}_{}{}^{28}\mathrm{Si}`$ and the composition determined by the LS EOS.

Figure 1, taken from the simulation of Mezzacappa et al., shows the radius-versus-time trajectories of equal mass (0.01M) shells in the stellar iron core and silicon layer in a Newtonian simulation initiated from the 13 M progenitor. Core bounce and the formation and propagation of the initial bounce shock are evident. This shock becomes an accretion shock, decelerating the core material passing through it. At $``$ 125 ms after bounce, the accretion shock stalls at a radius $``$ 250 km and begins to recede, continuing to do so during the first 500 ms of postbounce evolution. No explosion has developed in this model during this time. Similar behavior is exhibited in our 15 and 20 M Newtonian models and in our 13 and 20 M general relativistic models, although these have not yet reached 500 ms after bounce. We will continue these simulations and report on the final outcomes in subsequent papers. If explosions are consistently obtained in the more realistic general relativistic cases, this would imply that core collapse supernovae driven purely by neutrino heating are possible, although these same models would have to be considered in three dimensions to assess whether or not multidimensional effects alter this conclusion and, of course, to model any associated phenomenology, such as neutron star kicks.

## 3 Convection

Supernova convection falls into two categories: (1) convection near or below the neutrinospheres, which we refer to as proto-neutron star convection, and (2) convection between the gain radius and the shock, which we refer to as neutrino-driven convection. The gain radius is the radius at which neutrino heating and cooling via electron neutrino and antineutrino absorption and emission between the neutrinospheres and the shock balance. There is net neutrino heating above this radius and net neutrino cooling below it.

Proto-neutron star convection may aid the explosion mechanism by boosting the neutrinosphere luminosities. Hot, lepton-rich rich matter is convectively transported to the neutrinospheres. This mode of convection may develop owing to instabilities caused by lepton and entropy gradients established by the deleptonization of the proto-neutron star via electron neutrino escape near the electron neutrinosphere and by the weakening supernova shock (as the shock weakens, it causes a smaller entropy jump in the material flowing through it). Proto-neutron star convection is arguably the most difficult to investigate numerically because the neutrinos and the matter are coupled and, consequently, multidimensional simulations must include both multidimensional hydrodynamics and multidimensional, multigroup neutrino transport.

Neutrino-driven convection may aid the explosion mechanism by boosting the shock radius and the neutrino heating efficiency, thereby facilitating shock revival. It develops as the result of the entropy gradient established as the shocked stellar core material infalls between the shock and the gain radius, being continually heated in the process.

### 3.1 Proto-Neutron Star Convection (1D): Neutron Fingers

The fundamental difficulty in modeling convection in spherically symmetric models is apparent: convection is a three-dimensional phenomenon, and spherically symmetric models can incorporate convection only in a phenomenological way (e.g., via a mixing-length prescription). Moreover, because convection is not admitted by the one-dimensional hydrodynamics equations, some imposed criterion for the existence of convection must be used.

Neutron-finger convection has been invoked by Wilson et al. in their one-dimensional models and has been deemed necessary by them to obtain supernova explosions. This mode of proto-neutron star convection arises in the presence of a negative electron fraction gradient and a positive entropy gradient in the postshock stellar core, resulting in higher-entropy, neutron-richer matter above lower-entropy, neutron-poorer matter in the core. With the assumption that energy transport by neutrinos is more efficient than lepton transport, neutron fingers develop under these conditions, resulting (like salt fingers in the ocean) in finger-like downflows of neutron-rich matter that penetrate deep into the stellar core. The assumption that energy transport is more efficient than lepton transport is justified in the following way: Three flavors of neutrinos (electron, muon, and tau) can transport energy, whereas only one (electron) can transport lepton number. However, detailed neutrino equilibration experiments carried out by Bruenn and Dineva demonstrate that the muon and tau neutrinos do not couple strongly with the stellar core matter in energy, and therefore, there is only one flavor (electron) that transports both energy and lepton number efficiently. Given the outcome of these numerical experiments, the fundamental assumption made by Wilson et al. should be reexamined. However, it is also important to note that the equilibration experiments carried out by Bruenn and Dineva have to be repeated in light of energy exchange channels between the muon and tau neutrinos and the stellar core matter that have recently been identified (e.g., see the contribution by Thompson and Burrows in this volume).

### 3.2 Proto-Neutron Star Convection (2D): Ledoux Convection

In certain regions of the stellar core, neutrino transport can equilibrate a convecting fluid element with its surroundings in both entropy and lepton number on time scales shorter than convection time scales, rendering the fluid element nonbouyant. This will occur in intermediate regimes in which neutrino transport is efficient but in which the neutrinos are still strongly enough coupled to the matter. Figures 2 and 3 from Mezzacappa et al. demonstrate that this equilibration can in fact occur. Figure 2 shows the onset and development of proto-neutron star convection in a 25 M model shortly after bounce in a simulation that did not include neutrino transport, i.e., that was a hydrodynamics-only run. Figure 3 on the other hand shows the lack of any significant onset and development of convection when neutrino transport was included in what was otherwise an identical model. Transport’s damping effects are obvious. (The same result occurred in our 15 M model.)

On the other hand, in the model of Keil et al., vigorous proto-neutron star convection developed, which then extended deep into the core as a deleptonization wave moved inward owing to neutrinos diffusing outward. In this model, convection occurs very deep in the core where neutrino opacities are high and transport becomes inefficient in equilibrating a fluid element with its surroundings.

It is also important to note in this context that Mezzacappa et al. and Keil et al. used complementary transport approximations. In the former case, spherically symmetric transport was used, which maximizes lateral neutrino transport and overestimates the neutrino–matter equilibration rate; in the latter case, ray-by-ray transport was used, which minimizes (zeroes) lateral transport and underestimates the neutrino–matter equilibration rate.

These outcomes clearly demonstrate that to determine whether or not proto-neutron star convection (including neutron fingers) exists and, if it exists, is vigorous, will require simulations coupling three-dimensional, multigroup neutrino transport and three-dimensional hydrodynamics. Moreover, realistic high-density neutrino opacities will also be needed.

### 3.3 Neutrino-Driven Convection (2D)

This mode of convection occurs directly between the gain radius and the stalled shock as a result of the entropy gradient that forms as material infalls between the two while being continually heated from below. In Figure 4, a sequence of two-dimensional plots of entropy are shown, illustrating the development and evolution of neutrino-driven convection in our 15 M model. High-entropy, rising plumes and lower-entropy, denser, finger-like downflows are seen. The shock is distorted by this convective activity.

In the Herant et al. simulations, large-scale convection developed beneath the shock, leading to increased neutrino energy deposition, the accumulation of mass and energy in the gain region, and a thermodynamic engine they claimed ensured explosion, although Herant et al. stressed the need for more sophisticated multidimensional, multigroup transport in future models. \[They used two-dimensional “gray” (neutrino-energy–integrated, as opposed to multigroup) flux-limited diffusion in neutrino-thick regions and a neutrino lightbulb approximation in neutrino-thin regions. In a lightbulb approximation, the neutrino luminosities and rms energies are assumed constant with radius.\] In the Burrows et al. simulations, neutrino-driven convection in some models significantly boosted the shock radius and led to explosions. However, they stressed that success or failure in producing explosions was ultimately determined by the values chosen for the neutrino spectral parameters in their gray ray-by-ray (one-dimensional) neutrino diffusion scheme. \[In spherical symmetry (1D), all rays are the same. In a ray-by-ray scheme in axisymmetry (2D), not all rays are the same, although the transport along each ray is a 1D problem. In this latter case, lateral transport between rays is ignored.\] Focusing on the neutrino luminosities, Janka and Müller, using an adjustable central neutrino lightbulb, conducted a parameter survey and concluded that neutrino-driven convection aids explosion only in a narrow luminosity window ($`\pm 10\%`$), below which the luminosities are too low to power explosions and above which neutrino-driven convection is not necessary to power explosions. In more recent simulations carried out by Swesty using two-dimensional gray flux-limited diffusion in both neutrino-thick and neutrino-thin regions, it was demonstrated that the simulation outcome varied dramatically as the matter–neutrino “decoupling point,” which in turn sets the neutrino spectra in the heating region, was varied within reasonable limits. (The fundamental problem in gray transport schemes is that the neutrino spectra, which are needed for the heating rate, are not computed. The spectra are specified by choosing a neutrino “temperature,” normally chosen to be the matter temperature at decoupling. In a multigroup scheme, the spectra are computed dynamically.) In our two-dimensional models, the angle-averaged shock radii do not differ significantly from the shock trajectories in their one-dimensional counterparts, and no explosions are obtained, as seen in Figure 4. Neither the luminosities nor the neutrino spectra are free parameters. Our two-dimensional simulations implemented precomputed spherically symmetric (1D) multigroup flux-limited diffusion neutrino transport, compromising transport dimensionality to implement multigroup transport and a seamless transition between neutrino-thick and neutrino-thin regions, although without feedback between the hydrodynamics and the transport.

In light of the neutrino transport approximations made, the fact that none of the simulations have been three dimensional, and the mixed outcomes, next-generation simulations will have to reexplore neutrino-driven convection in the context of three-dimensional simulations that implement more realistic three-dimensional multigroup neutrino transport.

## 4 Rotation and Magnetic Fields

The observed polarization of spectra in a number of core collapse supernovae is a fingerprint of gross asymmetries in the explosions, with axis ratios as large as 2:1, which has lead to the suggestion that these explosions must have been jet-like. If so, what is the origin of these jet-like explosions? Are the jets formed early on as part of the explosion mechanism, or do they form as the supernova shock wave propagates through an aspherical medium? Three classes of models that exhibit jet-like behavior have been investigated: neutrino-driven jet models after core collapse and bounce in a rotating stellar core, MHD-driven jet models from the core collapse and bounce of rotating, magnetized cores, and neutrino- or MHD-driven jet models around a newly formed black hole in a failed or successful supernova, respectively, in a rotating stellar core. Two things of note: (1) Having jet-like explosions does not imply the explosions are not neutrino-driven. (2) There may be several explosion paradigms at work in the full range of observed supernovae of all progenitor stars.

In the two-dimensional axisymmetric model of Fryer and Heger, the first to include the effects of both convection and rotation, a weak, jet-like explosion along the rotation axis was obtained. Unfortunately, all axisymmetric simulations must contend with reflecting boundary conditions on the rotation axis, which numerically bias on-axis outflow, not allowing the flow to turnover and thereby break axisymmetry. Moreover, in three dimensions, the interaction of convection and rotation would result in “tornadic” flows not admitted by the imposed axisymmetry, which implies that the flow should be qualitatively different in three dimensions. In the two-dimensional models of Leblanc and Wilson and Symbalisty, it was concluded that unusually high rotation rates and magnetic field strengths were required to generate explosions, requiring, for example, magnetic field strengths as large as $`10^{17}`$ Gauss. In the model of MacFadyen and Woosley, although a plausible neutrino energy deposition mechanism was invoked, the energy deposition was parameterized and not modeled in detail. Thus, a full exploration of these possibilities will require three-dimensional (neutrino) radiation hydrodynamics, magnetohydrodynamics, and magneto-radiation hydrodynamics simulations.

## 5 Outlook

Fundamental questions in supernova theory remain, which can only be answered via systematic and coordinated simulations in one, two, and three dimensions.

We have shown results from the first 500 ms of a one-dimensional (spherically symmetric) Newtonian simulation with Boltzmann neutrino transport initiated from a 13 M progenitor. In light of our implementation of Boltzmann transport, if we do not obtain explosions in this model, or other models we have initiated from different progenitors (see also Rampp and Janka), it would suggest that improvements in our initial conditions (precollapse models) and/or input physics are needed, and/or that the inclusion of multidimensional effects such as convection, rotation, and magnetic fields are required ingredients in the recipe for explosion. In the past, it was not clear whether failure in spherically symmetric models was the result of transport approximations or the lack of inclusion of important physics. With the implementation of Boltzmann transport, this conclusion can be made unambiguously. We will report on the continued evolution of our 13 M model and on our other models in subsequent papers.

Potential improvements in our initial conditions and input physics include: improvements in precollapse models; the use of ensembles of nuclei in the stellar core rather than a single representative nucleus; computing the neutrino–nucleus cross sections with detailed shell model computations; and the inclusion of nucleon correlations in the high-density neutrino opacities. These improvements all have the potential to quantitatively, if not qualitatively, change the details of our simulations. Thus, it is important to note that the conclusions drawn here are drawn considering the initial conditions and input physics used.

To accurately investigate multdimensional effects such as convection, rotation, and magnetic fields, future simulations must be carried out in three dimensions and must implement realistic, three-dimensional, multigroup neutrino transport. Three-dimensional simulations will be necessary to assess, for example, the vigor of convection in the proto-neutron star, where the neutrinos and the matter are strongly coupled and the flow is three-dimensional, and to assess the character of neutrino-driven convection behind the shock in a stellar core that is both rotating and convecting. Certainly, three-dimensional simulations are required to study the development of MHD jets in stellar cores, and given that the development of such jets depends in some scenarios on the convection in the proto-neutron star, which in turn will depend on the neutrino transport, all of these studies must be strongly coupled.

## Acknowledgments

A.M. is supported at the Oak Ridge National Laboratory, managed by UT-Battelle, LLC, for the U.S. Department of Energy under contract DE-AC05-00OR22725. He would like to thank the organizers, Joergen Christensen-Dalsgaard and Karlheinz Langanke, for a delightful conference, and Raph Hix for valuable comments on the manuscript.


text:
# 1 Introduction

## 1 Introduction

DNA molecules are main storage of information about any organism. They are long sequences (linear or closed to a loop) contained in each cell of an organism. Usually DNA sequences are represented by a string of just four letters (A, C, G, T), each of them corresponds a definite type of nucleotides: adenine, cytosine, guanine and thymine. These letters can form different combinations. Purposely, some combinations in DNA texts are nonrandom. They reflect structure and function of DNA and proteins. Where from the question arises, what are regularities of such letter sequences corresponded to known DNA properties?

Due to modern automatic techniques and new technologies of genome sequencing one can observe great increase of DNA texts data . The crucial question of modern genomics is what kind of information can be extracted from these data? In this realm many statistical methods were applied or even elaborated for DNA sequences analysis. Great success was achieved in DNA sequences classification , autocorrelation analysis , Fourier spectrum analysis , wawelet analysis , entropies calculations , methods of Hurst index estimation , transition matrix analysis , random walk , usage of the mutual information function , detrended fluctuation analysis , linguistics methods  etc. Large number of models, DNA emulated, have been constructed .

Although some of the studies are in contradiction with each other, the presence of long-range correlations and period-three oscillations in DNA sequences one can believe statistically postulated. Now the 3 bp periodicity and the mutual information function are widely used to find exons in newly sequenced DNA . Long range correlations are discussed in connection with chromosomal organization of genomes .

Let us notice that the main statistical investigations was performed in the letter (single nucleotide) sequences consideration. At the same time such elements of DNA structure as three nucleotides (codon) protein coding, the regulatory units such as promoters, splice sites, enhansers and silencer fairly difficult, or with too low accuracy, can be detected or predicted just letter analysis. So it seems to be needed to consider regularities no only in the letter sequences but among them groups (words) as well. As concrete example of the words importance one can take restrictase recognition sites as BglI: GCC - - - - - GGC where five nucleotides between sequences GCC GGC may be any, or classical Pribnow-Hilbert blocks: TTGACA- - -…- -TATAAT, where moreover, the distance between the blocks can vary .

Some attempts of statistical analysis and classification of short (3-8 nucleo tid es) sequences have been made . Especially it concerns three letter sequences (codons), since these codons form so say amino acids (20 letters) language. But comparing the results, one can see that they strongly depend on an envisage object . Let us notice that triplets analysis is also insufficient for DNA structure explanation, for example, it tells us nothing about DNA conformational properties, interactions with proteins and proteins-RNA complexes, equilibrium between mutation and heredity. Though it is reasonable to suggest that this information presents in the DNA text as well.

If we would analyze any single genome, rather we obtain a result appropriate for the very narrow field of investigated objects. If we would study words’ statistical properties for drastically different organisms, we obtain strongly distinct results . For this reason we decide to pay attention to bacteria genomes. From one hand there are different kinds of bacteria that, as one can suppose, is reflected in some distinctions of their genomes, from the other certainly one bacteria kind is closer to other one rather than to another species as, for example, plants or viruses, no concerning of higher organisms. So the goal of the present paper is comparative analysis of bacteria genomes in words context.

In second section we present distribution of the word frequency versus the rank in analogy to the Zipf analysis of natural languages , and compare the results with ones from linguistics DNA analysis . In Sec. 3 we pay attention to the most frequently appeared words and almost never realized ones. Section 4 show the result of autocorrelation analysis. Finally conclusions on the basis performed comparative statistical analysis are given in Sec. 5.

## 2 Word frequency

In analogy to Zipf analysis of natural languages  we study distribution of word’s frequency versus rank. In order to obtain the distribution we first rank order the total number of occurrences of each word, and than plot their relative values against rank. We have investigated words of length ($`n`$) from 1 to 7 nucleotides of 20 complete bacteria genomes origin from GenBank . Whose size, short (using in this paper) and full names are presented in the Table 1.

The sequences length ranges from 580074 bp (mgen) to 4639221 bp (ecoli). We use the same method of sliding window as  for frequency of occurrences obtaining. According to this approach a window of length $`n`$ nucleotides/letters is taken and the set of blocks/words of size $`n`$ is obtained by shifting the window on one letter at a time. We look for all possible words from $`4^n`$ for each $`n[1,7]`$. If $`n<5`$ the number of all possible variants is less 300 that, generally speaking, seems to be insufficient for the statement that the distribution obeys some law. For this reason, only for $`n[5,7]`$ we claim that the distributions quite well approximated by logarithmic law

$$f(r)=\alpha 10^4\mathrm{ln}r$$

where $`r`$ – rank and $`f`$ – frequency of occurrences of a word (approximation accuracy ranges from 95.6% (hpyl genome) to 99.6% (synecho genome)). Indexes $`\alpha `$ for each genome and $`n[5,7]`$ are presented in the Table 2. The Figure 1 shows the distributions for tpal genome, which has the smallest index, mgen genome which has the largest index and aquae genome – an intermediate case.

Let us notice that the indexes do not depend on genome size.

Looking at the Figure 1 in , it is easy to see that the power law approximation no exceeds the value $`10^3`$ of the rank, what is only the third part of the pointed graph, for others two parts it is obviously not so. Other works  also confirm that a power low is not the better approximation of the rank word distribution and DNA texts have not to believe to be written on a language in the linguistic sense.

## 3  Most and least frequently met words

DNA molecules consists of two strands letter sequences corresponded each other according to the rule: versus A letter on other strand the letter T is situated, versus C – G, G – C and T – A. It is the property of complementarity of DNA strands. Looking for what words are the most frequently met in the genomes’ texts, we obtained that for $`n[2,6]`$ it is polyA fragments (AAA…A $`(A)_n`$) (or taking into account sequences’ complementarity, it should be polyT fragments ($`(T)_n`$) as well. Let us sign this fact as $`(A/T)_n`$), where $`n`$ is the length of the fragment. In the Table 3 the results of polyA/T sequences occurrence for $`n[2,7]`$ as well as the genomes, whose most frequently met words is no $`(A/T)_n`$, are presented.

Dominant polyA/T sequences were found in many DNA investigations . There are some explanations of this phenomenon as, for instance, the fact that (A,T) relation is weaker than (C,G), or that $`(A)_n,(T)_n`$ sequences have a specific three-dimensional structure different from one of $`(C)_n,(G)_n`$ or other chains, that can be necessary for nucleosomes organization . Just the question remains why is it so only for the fragments’ length less than 7 (for the 20 complete bacteria genomes of different sizes)?

For marked by (\*) genomes in the Table 3 fraction of ApT (A plus T) nucleotides is greater than fraction of CpG. Just 4 others genomes have fraction of CpG greater than one of ApT.

Below the most frequently met words for each envisaged genome in corresponding to given in the Table 1 order are presented:

CCTCCTC GAGGAGG AAAGGAA TTTTTCA TTTTTCT AGAAAAA CGCCAGC AAAAAAT TTTAAAA TTTTTAA TTAAAAA TTTTTAA TCCCTGA GCCGCCG TCCTGGG TCTCCTT TATTTTT GGCGATC GAAAGAA CGCGCGC

The most frequently met word on the level 7 (for word length equal to 7) among 20 genomes is TTTTTAA (2 genomes).

On 6 level: CTCCTC GAGGAG AAGGAA TTTTTT TTTTTT AAAAAA CGCCAG AAAAAT TTTTTT AAAAAA TTTAAA TTTAAA CCCTGA CCGCCG CTTCCT CTTCTT ATTTTT CGATCG GAAGAA GCGCGC

That, as it can be seen, differs from the results of .

For 9 from 20 investigated genomes (aero, aful, aquae, ecoli, hinf, mthe, mtub, rpxx, tpal) the dominant words (having maximal frequency of occurrences) of length 7 differ from ones of length 6 just on a single nucleotide added at the beginning or end of the word. 8 genomes (aero, aful, ecoli, mthe, mtub, pabyssi, synecho, tpal) in the most frequent words have CpG fraction greater than ApT. Let us notice, mainly in the dominant words C and G letters appear in GC/CG compositions and never we met there the fragments (C/G)k\>3. This can be connected with that CG (or GC) repeats in DNA in greater degree than polyC/G fragments supply maximum contribution into free energy of the secondary structure .

Since we look for every of $`4^n`$ possible words, turn out to be that no all of them are realized in each genome. Namely, for $`n<6`$ all possible 1024 words appear at least once in every genome. For $`n=6`$ three genomes have no some words: hpyl – TCGACA GTCGAC, mgen – CTCGGA CCGGCC TCGGCC GGACGC CGGCGC CCCGGC GGCCTC GCCGTC TCCGAG CGCGCG TCGGCG GGCCGG CCTCGG GGTCGG, mjan – GTCGAC GCGCGC CGATCG. For $`n=7`$ there are only 4 genomes containing all words: aero, bsub, ctra, tpal. The number of absent words for others varies from 1 (ecoli, synecho) to 851 (mgen). In the Table 4 one can see the number of absent words for investigated genomes. Where from one can see that words’ absence is not follow to genome length, as it should be for random sequences.

The rarest word (which are absent in the envisaged genomes more often than others) for $`n=6`$ is GTCGAC (2 genomes), for $`n=7`$ – GCGCGCG (6 genomes), CGCGCGC GTCGACG GGCCTCG (4 genomes).

All absent and rarest words contain greater fraction of CpG than ApT. At the same time neither polyC/G words nor even (C/G)k\>3 fragments of the words are not absent on the level 6 or rarest on the level 7 in any from investigated genomes. In the absent and rarest words quite often one can meet CG or (CG)k fragments, which as it claimed in  are more energetically profitable for secondary structure formation. The question remains why energetically more profitable (CG)k fragments are present in the row of the absent or rarest words but less energetically profitable polyG/C fragments have not been found there?

Moreover among the absent or rarest words of length 6 there are several (complemented) palindromes (GTCGAC, CGCGCG, GTCGAC, GCGCGC, CGATCG). That can be understand in biological context as such palindromes are well known restriction enzyme cut sites, and hence are avoided by bacteria. Thus absent and rarest words investigation seems to be also important part of DNA studies, since it can give us a relevant information.

## 4 Autocorrelation analysis

We have performed analysis of autocorrelations for the most frequently met words. We considered length $`n=3,6,7`$. For the analysis we use standard procedure of translation of genomes’ letter sequences into number representation. Namely we divide a letter genome sequence into words of length $`n`$ shifting the frame/window of length $`n`$ on one nucleotide for getting a new word. If the word on $`ith`$ position is the most frequent for an envisaged genome it is replaced by 1 in the new representation, let us denote this fact as $`x_i=1`$ and $`x_i=0`$ otherwise. So we obtain the row of $`Nn+1`$ numerical values $`\{x_i\}_{i=1}^{Nn+1}`$ where $`N`$ is genome size.

The autocorrelation function $`R(l)`$ of a numerical sequence can be written as

$$R(l)=<x_ix_{i+l}>,$$

where the brackets denote average over the sites along the sequence. Since the number of units in the chain in our case is fairly small, we are interested in merely the quality results, in other words, in character of $`R(l)`$ itself.

It has been obtained that for $`n=3`$ there are almost only correlations of order 1 or 2. However for several genomes: ecoli, mthe, mtub, tmar in $`R(l)`$ behavior oscillations of period 3 are observed.

In case $`n=6`$, $`R(l)`$ behavior acquires greater distinctions. In the genomes synecho, pabyssi, mthe, mpneu, hinf correlations rather are absent, essential ones are in hpyl, bsub genomes (almost on any up to $`l=50`$ scale). Period 3 oscillations are present in the genomes mtub, mjan, aquae, aful, aero. Let us notice that for mtub genome correlations are quite strong even for scale $`l10^3`$,. Ones are weak in others genomes with period 3 oscillations.

As for $`n=7`$, in a whole in investigated genomes there is tendency of existence of greater correlations on $`l`$ module 3. The most strong correlations are found as before in mtub  genome, moreover there are existed on very large scale. In Fig. 2 one can see $`R(l)`$ for this genome ($`n=6`$). Here also one can mention that tpal genome has correlations of order 2 and 4, mjan – 12 and 21, hpyl – 10, 15, 21, 39, 45, aero and aful – 3.

More detailed analysis of the genome mtub structure reveals that period 3 oscillations are characteristic for the second and third word in ranked words distribution as well, for the forth word it is not so. More often met words have on order higher frequencies of occurrences for 6 from 20 envisaged genomes (for $`n=7`$). Three of them (hpyl, mjan, mtub) reveal correlations. Mtub genome has the frequency of first three words order 3 and oscillations of period 3 are characteristic for first three words as well. Synecho has sharpest drop in ranked word distribution after forth word (Fig. 3).

Such characteristic tendency of period 3 oscillations existence as in letters as in words of different length investigations of DNA texts can be connected with scale invariance or self affinity of genomes organization, in other words, DNA sequences to all appearances posses by fractal properties.

## 5 Conclusions

On the basis performed statistical analysis of the bacteria genomes the main conclusions are followed.

The ranked word distributions quite well approximated by logarithmic law.

Results obtained in absent words investigation show the considerably nonrandom character of DNA texts sequences and allow to reveal biologically relevant units as restriction enzyme cut sites. That points on importance of such kind study.

Characteristics do not depend on genome size as it has to be for random texts.

In character of behavior of autocorrelation function in several genomes period 3 oscillations were found. This result takes place for any word’s length from envisaged.

Short range autocorrelations are present in short ($`n=3`$) words and practically absent in longer words.

Concerning autocorrelations investigation, the results obtained for mtub genome seems to be the most interesting. Here we have strong correlations with period 3 oscillations for any word length from envisaged and on large scale, that could not be detected for other genomes.

In a whole statistical analysis shows that bacteria genomes are considerably varies from each other. Any essential similarities for genomes of a same class (e.g. Pyrococcus: pabyssi, pyro, Chlammydia: cpneu, ctra, Mycoplasma: mpneu, mgen) were not found.

If we want to elaborate any general scheme of genomes classification according to statistical analysis, it will be a fairly difficult task. Since always there are a lot of exceptions. As for example, the words with CG repeats can form as the most frequent words as never met ones. GC fragments in the dominant words are more appropriate for the longer genomes (ecoli, mtub, synecho) but bsub genome is longer than synecho but does not contain such fragments in the dominant word. Reasonable conclusions one can make only on the basis of as possibly greater set of factors. So one can suppose that absence of words on 6 level in hpyl and mjan genomes (having a middle length among investigated) is connected with the presence of autocorrelations of the most frequently met words more than on a single scale. Strong autocorrelations in mtub genome can point on a specific structure of this genome. Here also one has to mention the nontypical characteristics of tpal genome: the smallest index in ranked word distribution, autocorrelations on 2 and 4 scales. Here the dominant word consists of CG repeats (that is the rarest word for other genomes), presence of all possible words on level 7. All this factors allow us to claim that this genome is the most structureless from the investigated.

Acknowledgments.

I would like to thank Vladimir Alenin for the useful discussion in biological aspects of the work. This work is partially supported by State Committee of Russian Federations for high education (grant No 97-14.3-58), St-Petersburg Government Fellowship and Soros graduate program.

FIGURES

Fig. 1 In this figure one can see the word ranked distributions for tpal, mgen, aquae genomes in semilogarithm scale. Word length $`n=7`$.

Fig. 2 In this figure one can see autocorrelation function $`R(l)`$ for mtub genome in semilogarithm scale, word length $`n=6`$.

Fig. 3 In this figure one can see first 20 points of the word ranked distributions for hpyl, mgen, mjan, mtub, rpxx, synecho genomes, whose are characterized by greater (on order) frequency of initial words and aero genome for comparison.

TABLES

Table 1

| 1669695 | aero | Aeropyrum pernix K1 |
| --- | --- | --- |
| 2178400 | aful | Archaeoglobus fulgidus |
| 1551335 | aquae | Aquifex aeolicus |
| 4214814 | bsub | Bacillus subtilis |
| 1230230 | cpneu | Chlamydia pneumoniae |
| 1042518 | ctra | Chlamydia trachomatis |
| 4639221 | ecoli | Escherichia coli K-12 MG1655 |
| 1830137 | hinf | Haemophilus influenzae Rd |
| 1667867 | hpyl | Helicobacter pylori 26695 |
| 580074 | mgen | Mycoplasma genitalium G37 |
| 1664970 | mjan | Methanococcus jannaschii |
| 816394 | mpneu | Mycoplasma pneumoniae M129 |
| 1751377 | mthe | Methanobacterium thermoautotrophicum delta H |
| 4411529 | mtub | Mycobacterium tuberculosis |
| 1765118 | pabyssi | Pyrococcus abyssi |
| 1738505 | pyro | Pyrococcus horikoshii OT3 |
| 1111523 | rpxx | Rickettsia prowazekii strain Madrid E |
| 3573470 | synecho | Synechocystis PCC6803 |
| 1860725 | tmar | Thermotoga maritima |
| 1138011 | tpal | Treponema pallidum |

In this table size, short (using in the paper) and full names of 20 investigated bacteria genomes are presented.

Table 2

| name | n=5 | n=6 | n=7 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |
| aero | 6.12 | 1.71 | 0.49 |
| aful | 5.92 | 1.62 | 0.446 |
| aquae | 6.53 | 1.96 | 0.581 |
| bsub | 5.87 | 1.6 | 0.452 |
| cpneu | 6.27 | 1.67 | 0.47 |
| ctra | 6.08 | 1.62 | 0.454 |
| ecoli | 5.71 | 1.47 | 0.39 |
| hinf | 7.11 | 2.04 | 0.595 |
| hpyl | 7.73 | 2.26 | 0.717 |
| mgen | 9.73 | 2.79m | 0.86 |
| mjan | 10.04m | 2.78 | 0.857 |
| mpneu | 6.94 | 1.97 | 0.572 |
| mthe | 6.43 | 1.7 | 0.468 |
| mtub | 8.6 | 2.44 | 0.725 |
| pabyssi | 6.25 | 1.62 | 0.438 |
| pyro | 7.39 | 1.87 | 0.497 |
| rpxx | 9.21 | 2.65 | 0.84 |
| synecho | 6.14 | 1.62 | 0.448 |
| tmar | 6.52 | 1.84 | 0.536 |
| tpal | 4.49m | 1.25m | 0.356m |

In this table indexes $`\alpha `$ for each envisaged genome and word’s length $`n[5,7]`$ are presented.

Table 3

| 2 | 14/20 | aero, eco li, mthe(∗), mtub, tmar(∗), tpal |
| --- | --- | --- |
| 3 | 12/20 | \+ aful, pabyssi |
| 4 | 11/20 | \+ pyro |
| 5 | 10/20 | \+ aquae |
| 6 | 5/20 | \+ hinf, mjan, mpneu, rpxx, synecho |
| 7 | 0 | all |

In this table the results of polyA/T sequences occurrence for $`n[2,7]`$ as well as the genomes, whose most frequently met words is no $`(A/T)_n`$, are presented.

The first column of the table shows the level number (length of the word); the second column – ratio of the number of the genomes, whose have dominant polyA/T sequence, to total number of genomes; the third column – the names of the genomes, whose most frequently met words is no $`(A/T)_n`$.

(We present in this table the genomes whose most frequently met words are another than polyA/T because for $`n=2`$ the number of such genomes is less, therefore, since if a genome has no polyA/T sequence as dominant on the second level ($`n=2`$) it has no one as dominant on any higher level. For $`n=3`$ we only add to the genomes from previous level such ones, who has dominant polyA/T on the second level and has no it on the third and so on up to the level 7.)

Table 4

| aero | aful | aquae | bsub | cpneu | ctra | ecoli | hinf | hpyl | mgen |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| 0 | 4 | 4 | 0 | 2 | 0 | 1 | 11 | 192 | 851 |
| mjan | mpneu | mthe | mtub | pabyssi | pyro | rpxx | synecho | tmar | tpal |
| 318 | 7 | 5 | 3 | 3 | 4 | 71 | 1 | 2 | 0 |

In this table one can see the number of absent words for envisaged genomes.