format: text

text:
# Unstable flux flow due to heated electrons in Y-Ba-Cu-O films

(Accepted August 5, 2002)

## Abstract

A flux instability occurs in superconductors at low temperatures, where ee scattering is more rapid than ep, whereby the dissipation significantly elevates the electronic temperature while maintaining a thermal-like distribution function. The reduction in condensate and rise in resistivity produce a non-monotonic current-voltage response. In contrast to the Larkin-Ovchinnikov instability where the vortex shrinks, in this scenario the vortex expands and the quasiparticle population rises. Measurements in Y1Ba2Cu3O7-δ agree quantitatively with the distinct predictions of this mechanism.

Flux, fluxon, vortex, superconductivity, critical, current, instability, unstable, YBCO  preprint: Accepted for publication in Phys. Rev. Lett. ($``$Sept. 2002)

In a type II superconductor, magnetic fields between the lower critical value $`H_{c1}`$ and upper critical field $`H_{c2}`$ introduce flux vortices containing a quantum of flux $`\mathrm{\Phi }_o=h/2e`$. Here we have superconducting films in a perpendicular applied flux density $`B`$, with a transport electric current density $`j`$ in the plane of the film, which exerts a Lorentz driving force $`F_L=j\mathrm{\Phi }_o`$. The vortex motion generates an electric field $`E=vB`$ and is opposed by a viscous drag $`\eta v`$ ($`\eta `$ is the coefficient of viscosity and $`v`$ the vortex velocity), so that in steady state $`j\mathrm{\Phi }_o=\eta v`$ and the response is Ohmic. Larkin and Ovchinnikov (1986) have shown that a dirty superconductor at low temperatures has a free-flux-flow resistivity related to the normal-state value $`\rho _n`$ by lochapter

$$\rho _f/\rho _n0.9B/H_{c2}(T).$$
(1)
Approximately the same result, without the precise 0.9 prefactor, can be obtained by considering the Ohmic dissipation in the core and temporal changes in the order parameter leading to irreversible entropy transfer bsandtinkhamandclem ; the result is also valid for d-wave superconductors that are not superclean kopninvolovik . Eq. 1 is equivalent to $`\eta \mathrm{\Phi }_0H_{c2}/\rho _n`$. At low levels of $`j`$ and $`E`$, in the assumed dirty limit $`l\xi E_F/kT_c`$ ($`l`$ is the mean free path and $`E_F`$ is the Fermi energy), $`\eta `$ is a constant that is proportional to the order parameter $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ and inversely proportional to the size $`\xi ^2`$ (where $`\xi `$ is the coherence length) of the vortex tinkhamtext . (The Hall effect and transverse component of $`E`$ are negligible for this discussion, as is vortex pinning because of the large driving forces obs .)

At high electric fields and dissipation levels sufficient to alter the electronic distribution function and/or the electronic temperature, $`j(E)`$ becomes non-linear and can develop an unstable region ($`dj/dE<0`$) above some critical vortex velocity $`v^{}`$. For the regime near $`T_c`$, such an instability has been predicted by Larkin and Ovchinnikov (LO) LO , and has been experimentally well established klein ; loexpt ; doett ; xiao . At high temperatures, the electron-phonon (ep) scattering time $`\tau _{ep}`$ can be shorter than the electron-electron (ee) scattering time $`\tau _{ee}`$, preventing internal equilibration of the electronic system and producing a peculiar non-thermal distribution function. Since the order parameter $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ is especially sensitive to the distribution function when close to $`T_c`$, even moderate values of $`E`$ can sufficiently distort $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ (via the Eliashberg mechanism eliashberg ) causing a shrinkage of the vortex core and a removal of quasiparticles from its vicinity. This is the gist of the LO behavior LO ; klein . As LO themselves emphasize, the effect is most favorable close to $`T_c`$ for superconductors with a full gap and, as shown by Bezuglyj and Shklovskij bezshkl , is dominant for $`B<B_T`$ (with $`B_T0.1`$ T for our low-$`T`$ regime). One of the predictions of the standard LO effect is a $`v^{}`$ that is $`B`$ independent. This has been confirmed in Y1Ba2Cu3O7-δ in the high-$`T`$ range doett ; xiao .

This work investigates the opposite regime of $`TT_c`$ and $`B>B_T`$, where $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ is not sensitive to small changes in the distribution function. Furthermore because $`\tau _{ee}`$ $`<`$ $`\tau _{ep}`$ as $`T0`$, the distribution function remains thermal like and the electronic system suffers mainly a temperature shift with respect to the lattice LO ; bezshkl ; bez ; volotskaya . Then instead of the standard LO picture described earlier, we consider a more transparent scenario where the main effect of the dissipation is to raise the electronic temperature, create additional quasiparticles, and diminish $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$. The vortex expands rather than shrinks, and the viscous drag is reduced because of a softening of gradients of the vortex profile rather than a removal of quasiparticles. This sequence of events is almost opposite to the standard LO picture and represents a new type of unstable regime prevalent at $`TT_c`$. All experimental measurables can be calculated without ambiguity, and the predicted field dependencies and full $`j(E)`$ curves fit the experimental results without any adjustable parameters.

Previously some deviations from LO behavior at intermediate temperatures—such as a $`B`$-dependent $`v^{}`$—were treated through modifications to the LO effect, such as an intervortex spacing $`l_\varphi `$ that exceeds the energy-relaxation length $`l_ϵ`$ doett2  or by inclusion of thermal effects bezshkl ; bez . Those treatments do not apply to the present $`T`$ $`T_c`$ regime where $`l_ϵ\sqrt{D\tau _{ep}}`$ 100–1000 nm is larger than $`l_\varphi =1.075\sqrt{\mathrm{\Phi }_o/B}`$ 10–50 nm ($`D=3\times 10^4`$ m2/s is the diffusion constant doett ).

Here we take a “bottom-up” approach and start from the $`T0`$ limit: The total input power $`jE`$ travels from electrons to lattice and from there to the bath, so that $`T_0`$ $`<`$ $`T_p`$ $`<`$ $`T^{}`$, where $`T_0`$ and $`T_p`$ are the bath and phonon temperatures, and $`T^{}`$ is the raised non-equilibrium electronic temperature. Macroscopic heating, represented by $`T_pT_0=R_{th}jE`$, is $`<5`$% of the total increase $`T^{}`$\- $`T_0`$ for the worst case dissipation so that $`T_pT_0`$ (Here $`R_{th}`$$``$1 nK.cm3/W is the total thermal resistance between the film and the bath; see experimental section. It will be seen later that the specific-heat integral heavily weights the higher temperatures, so that $`T_p`$\- $`T_0`$ is quite negligible.). The energy relaxation between electrons and lattice occurs by inelastic ep scattering, and is characterized by an effective time $`\tau _ϵ`$$``$$`<`$$`\tau _{ep}`$$`>`$. The principle contributions to $`\rho _n`$ come from impurities and phonons. Since the phonon temperature remains near the bath, $`\rho _n`$’s value will not change as the non-equilibrium $`T^{}`$ rises. Thus putting $`\rho _n(T_0)`$ and $`H_{c2}`$$`(T^{})`$ (since $`H_{c2}`$ does depend on $`T^{}`$) into previous equations gives the $`j(E)`$ response in terms of $`T^{}`$:

$$j=v\eta (T^{})/\mathrm{\Phi }_0=EH_{c2}(T^{})/\rho _n(T_0)B.$$
(2)
One now has the ingredients for calculating the critical field dependencies in a few steps. The $`j(E)`$ function of Eq. 2 is non-monotonic since $`E`$ is multiplied by $`H_{c2}(T^{})`$ (or $`\eta (T^{})`$) which drops rapidly to zero as $`T^{}`$$``$$`T_c`$ with increasing dissipation. The instability occurs at $`dj/dE=0`$, which happens at a certain value $`T^{}`$=$`T^{}`$ where $`H_{c2}(T^{})`$ (or $`\eta (T^{})`$) drops sufficiently rapidly. $`T^{}`$ depends explicitly only on the power density $`jE=\eta v^2B/\mathrm{\Phi }_0`$ and on quantities that depend on $`T^{}`$ itself ($`\tau _ϵ`$, specific heat, etc.). Hence at the instability, $`j^{}E^{}`$=$`v^2\eta (T^{})B/\mathrm{\Phi }_0`$=constant, which gives the critical-parameter field dependencies:

$$v^{}1/\sqrt{B},E^{}\sqrt{B},j^{}1/\sqrt{B},\text{ and }\rho ^{}B$$
(3)
using $`E^{}`$=$`v^{}`$$`B`$, $`j^{}`$=$`v^{}`$$`\eta (T^{})/\mathrm{\Phi }_0`$, and $`\rho ^{}`$=$`E^{}`$/$`j^{}`$. This gives $`v^{}1/\sqrt{B}`$ in a natural way, consistent with our measurements in this regime and in contrast to the $`B`$-independent $`v^{}`$ of the pure LO effect near $`T_c`$.

To derive the complete $`j(E)`$ response and absolute values of critical parameters we calculate $`T^{}`$ and insert it into Eq. 2. We take $`H_{c2}`$(0)=120 T nakagawa  with the WHH function whh  for interpolation between this $`H_{c2}`$(0)=120 and $`H_{c2}`$($`T_c`$)=0 (There is some theoretical controversy regarding the exact form of $`H_{c2}(T)`$; however, empirically, direct measurements nakagawa  of $`H_{c2}(T)`$, within their uncertainity, seem not to depart drastically from the WHH function, and the exact functional shape does not crucially affect our conclusions.). The dissipation raises the electronic energy by $`jE\tau _ϵ`$, which is related to $`T^{}`$ by

$$jE\tau _ϵ\frac{E^2H_{c2}(T^{})\tau _ϵ}{\rho _n(T_0)B}\underset{T_p}{\overset{T^{}}{}}c(T)𝑑T\underset{T_0}{\overset{T^{}}{}}c(T)𝑑T$$
(4)
where $`c(T)`$ is the electronic specific heat. To calculate $`c(T)`$, Y1Ba2Cu3O7-δ is modeled as a layered $`d`$-wave superconductor: $`\mathrm{\Delta }_\stackrel{}{k}(T)=\mathrm{\Delta }_0(T)[k_x^2k_y^2]/k^2\mathrm{\Delta }_0(T)\mathrm{cos}(2\theta )`$, taking the BCS temperature dependence for $`\mathrm{\Delta }_0(T)`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }_0(0)`$=$`19`$ meV from tunneling and infrared measurements deltavalue . Then $`c(T)`$=$`\{_kE_kf_k\}/T`$, where $`f_k`$=$`[\mathrm{exp}(E_k/k_BT)+1]^1`$ is the Fermi-Dirac distribution, $`E_k=\sqrt{\zeta _k^2+\mathrm{\Delta }_k^2}`$, $`\zeta _k=ϵ_k\mu `$, and $`\mu `$=0.2 eV is the chemical potential chempot . With the replacement of $`_k`$ by $`𝑑\zeta N(0)𝑑\theta /2\pi `$ (where $`N(0)`$ is the normal density of states at $`\mu `$) this $`c(T)`$ is now inserted into Eq. 4, which is integrated numerically to obtain $`T^{}`$ and thence $`j(E)`$ from Eq. 2.

The numerical results of the above calculation are shown in Fig. 1. The $`j(E)`$ curves of panel (a) have an infinite slope at the instability ($`j^{}`$, $`E^{}`$), indicated by arrows, and then exhibit negative slope. This negative sloped portion is experimentally forbidden in a current biased measurement and instead will be manifested as a vertical jump in $`E`$. The electronic temperature $`T^{}`$ rises from the bath value $`T_0`$ to $`T^{}`$ at the instability. Panel (b) shows the computed $`T^{}`$, which is independent of $`B`$ as expected but has a slight dependence on the bath temperature $`T_0`$.

In order to conveniently scale the experimental curves, the exact numerical $`j(E)`$ function derived above—and plotted in Fig. 1—can be cast into a mathematically more manageable form by noting that the R.H.S. of Eq. 4 can be approximated mnk-jmk by $`jE\tau _ϵ\mathrm{\Delta }(T^{})n_q(T^{})\mathrm{\Delta }(T_p)n_q(T_p)\mathrm{\Delta }(T^{})n_q(T^{})`$. $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ and $`n_q`$ are connected through the statistical equations of the previous paragraph. Numerically computing the number of quasiparticles excited above the gap (taking the anisotropic $`d`$-wave gap together with a BCS temperature dependence as discussed above) we obtain the following $`d`$-wave generalization of the $`\mathrm{\Delta }n_q`$ relationship mnk-jmk: $`(\mathrm{\Delta }/\mathrm{\Delta }_0)^2=f(n_q/n)`$, where $`n=2.7\times 10^{21}`$ cm-3 is the carrier concentration and $`f(x)10.4386x1539x^2+40381x^3345217x^4`$ (despite the appearance of successively increasing coefficients in $`f(x)`$, the terms rapidly converge because $`x`$=$`n_q`$/n$`k_BT/E_F0.01`$). Combining this with the earlier $`jE\tau _ϵ\mathrm{\Delta }(T^{})n_q(T^{})`$, $`\eta =j\mathrm{\Phi }_0/v=j\mathrm{\Phi }_0B/E`$, $`\eta H_{c2}\mathrm{\Phi }_0/\rho _n`$, and $`\eta \mathrm{\Delta }`$, we get a convenient closed form for the non-linear $`j(E)`$ characteristic:

$$j\left(\frac{H_{c2}(T_0)}{B\rho _n(T_0)}\right)E\sqrt{f(x)}$$
(5)
with $`x=n_q/n=0.0245\times E^2/E^2`$, and $`E^{}=\sqrt{0.0245\rho _n(T_0)Bn\mathrm{\Delta }_0/\tau _ϵH_{c2}(T_0)}`$ is the value of $`E`$ at the instability peak. We now turn to the experimental details and results.

The samples are c-axis oriented epitaxial films of Y1Ba2Cu3O7-δ on (100) LaAlO3 substrates with $`T_c`$’s around 90K and of thickness $`t90`$ nm. Electron-beam lithography was used to pattern bridges of widths $`w`$ 2–20 $`\mu `$m and lengths $`l`$ 30–200 $`\mu `$m. Altogether ten samples were studied at 12 temperatures (1.6, 2.2, 6, 7, 8, 10, 20, 27, 35, 42, 50, 80 K) and at 13 flux densities (0.1, 0.2, 0.5, 1, 1.5, 2, 10, 11, 13, 13.5, 13.8, 14, 15.8 T). The electrical transport measurements were made with a pulsed constant current source, preamplifier circuitry, and a digital storage oscilloscope. The pulse rise times are about 100 ns with a duty cycle of about 1 ppm, which for the narrowest bridges result in effective thermal resistances of order 1 nK.cm3/W. Note that the $`j`$ values in the experiment are an order of magnitude lower than the depairing current density pair  and the applied flux densities exceed the self field of the current by at least two orders of magnitude. Further details about the experimental techniques are discussed elsewhere mplb .

Fig. 2(a) shows a typical set of experimental $`j(E)`$ curves. The last stable datapoint ($`j^{}`$, $`E^{}`$) of each curve is at the tail of each arrow. The slightest further increase of $`j>`$$`j^{}`$ causes a drastic vertical jump in $`E`$ as shown by the arrows (the voltage pulse jumps off the scale of the oscilloscope upto the compliance limit of the current source). The jumps show only a small hysteresis $`<3`$% of $`j^{}`$. (As expected for a current-biased measurement, the break occurs slightly before the slope has become quite vertical bezshkl .) Fig. 2(b) shows the same data plotted as the R.H.S. of Eq. 5 vs $`jj_{c0}`$, the excess current density over the depinning value. The data scale well and tend toward homogeneous linearity. Note that the collapse implies an excellent proportionality between $`\rho `$ and $`B`$ over the entire range.

Fig. 3 shows experimentally measured $`B`$ dependencies of $`v^{}`$ and $`\rho ^{}`$ for $`T_0`$=1.6 K, demonstrating excellent agreement with Eq. 3 (the other dependencies $`E^{}\sqrt{B}`$ and $`j^{}1/\sqrt{B}`$ follow from $`\rho ^{}B`$ and $`v^{}1/\sqrt{B}`$). The $`v^{}1/\sqrt{B}`$ dependence was found to be ubiquitous for all of our low-$`T`$ measurements in ten samples (spanning 1.6 K $`T`$ 50 K and 0.5 T $`B`$ 15.8 T) and has also been seen by Xiao et al. xiao  at intermediate temperatures (at the lower end of their $`T`$$``$60–90 K range of study). Note that the excellent linearity between between $`\rho ^{}`$ and $`B`$ demonstrates the independence of $`\eta `$ on $`B`$ in this regime; then the resistivity is simply proportional to the number of vortices and hence $`B`$.

The final step in the analysis is to extract $`\tau _ϵ`$ from the data. Inverting Eq. 4 evaluated at the instability (i.e., at $`T^{}`$=$`T^{}`$), we get $`\tau _ϵ\frac{\rho _n(T_0)B}{H_{c2}(T^{})E^2}\underset{T_0}{\overset{T^{}}{}}c(T)𝑑T`$; the $`T^{}`$($`T_0`$) function comes from the model itself (Fig. 1(b)). $`\tau _ϵ`$ calculated in this way is shown by the circles in Fig. 4. If the data are analyzed in the LO framework ($`\tau _ϵD[14\zeta (3)]^{1/2}B^2/(\pi E^2)`$) a markedly longer $`\tau _ϵ`$ is obtained shown by the squares. For comparison the arrow shows the theoretical $`T`$$`0`$ limiting value estimated from spontaneous emission of phonons. (Emission of non-equilibrium phonons dominates ep scattering by thermal phonons below a cross-over temperature $`T_x=mv_Fc_s/k_B`$$``$43 K producing an essentially $`T`$-independent scattering rate (since $`kT`$$``$$`E_F`$) of $`\tau _{ep}`$=$`(3\pi \rho _Mc_s\mathrm{}^2)/(2C^2mk_F)8.4\times 10^{11}`$, where $`C`$$``$$`6\times 10^{13}`$ ergs is the coupling between electron energy and crystal dilation, $`c_s=4`$ km/s is the sound velocity, and $`\rho _M`$=6 g/cm3 is the mass density nistdatabase ; for further discussion see, for example, Kittel kittel .)

In conclusion, we investigated the low-temperature regime of flux motion driven far beyond free flux flow, and observed an instability under all conditions of fields, and temperatures from $``$$`T_c`$/2 down to essentially $`T0`$. The nature of this low-temperature instability seems to be well described by a model where the electron gas is heated above the phonon temperature leading to the generation of quasiparticles and loss in viscosity as the vortex core expands and $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ is reduced. This scenario is different from the standard LO picture (dominant mainly near $`T_c`$) where the vortex shrinks and quasiparticles leave its vicinity. Because the present effect prevails even at temperatures well below $`T_c`$ (where most superconductive devices operate) it becomes an important consideration in the design of applications where the superconductor operates in the dissipative regimefusion , since the instability triggers an abrupt rise in dissipation at $`j`$ values much below the depairing current density. Detailed predictions of the model, including field dependencies of critical parameters and shapes of $`j(E)`$ curves were experimentally verified, and the effect provides an estimate of the $`T`$$``$0 time scale for energy exchange between quasiparticles and phonons.

The author gratefully acknowledges useful discussions and other assistance from J. M. Knight, B. I. Ivlev, M. Geller, D. K. Christen, J. M. Phillips, R. P. Huebener, N. Schopohl, J. Blatter, and V. Geshkenbein. This work was supported by the U. S. Department of Energy through grant number DE-FG02-99ER45763.


text:
# 1 Prediction of Eq.(12) for the ratio R, where the cures are drawn with different parameterizations of the gluon distribution. Experimental data are from [].

AS-ITP-2002-002

Ratio of Photoproduction Rates of $`J/\psi `$ and $`\psi (2S)`$

J. P. Ma

Institute of Theoretical Physics , Academia Sinica, Beijing 100080, China

Jia-Sheng Xu

China Center of Advance Science and Technology (World Laboratory), Beijing 100080, China

and Institute of Theoretical Physics , Academia Sinica, Beijing 100080, China

## Abstract

There are different approaches for diffractive photoproduction of charmonia. Recently, a new approach is proposed, in which charm quarks are taken as heavy quarks and the nonperturbative effect related to charmonia can be handled with nonrelativistic QCD. The interaction between the $`c\overline{c}`$ pair and the initial hadron is through exchange of soft gluons. The exchange of soft gluons can be studied with heavy quark effective theory and an expansion in the inverse of charm quark mass $`m_c`$ can be employed. In this approach a simple formula for the S-matrix can be derived by neglecting higher orders in $`m_c^1`$ and relativistic correction related to charmonia. The S-matrix is related to the usual gluon distribution $`g(x)`$ at small $`x`$. This result is different than those from other approaches. Confronting experiment the result is not in agreement with experimental measurement because large errors from higher order in $`m_c^1`$ and from relativistic corrections. Nevertheless the ratio of cross sections of $`J/\psi `$ and $`\psi (2S)`$ can be predicted more precisely than cross-sections. In this letter we show that the ratio predicted in this approach with an estimation of relativistic corrections is in good agreement with the recent measurement at HERA.

PACS numbers: 12.38.-t, 12.39.Hg, 13.60.-r, 13.60.Le

Key Words: Soft gluon, HQET, diffractive photoproduction of charmonia, HERA experiment.

Diffractive photoproduction of a charmonium has been studied extensively. Experimentally diffractive photoproduction of $`J/\psi `$ and $`\psi (2S)`$ has been measured with increasing precision at HERA, while there are different approaches for the process. Recently H1 has studied diffractive photoproduction of $`\psi (2S)`$ and obtained the ratio

$$R=\frac{\sigma (\psi (2S))}{\sigma (J/\psi )}=0.166\pm 0.007(stat.)\pm 0.008(sys.)\pm 0.007(BR),$$
(1)
which is in agreement with an earlier measurement by H1. The measured ratio has a weak dependence on the invariant mass $`s`$ of the initial states. Although this ratio and the dependence on $`s`$ can be explained theoretically, e.g., with the approaches presented in , but there are always certain free parameters in these approaches. In this letter we will show that the ratio and the weak $`s`$-dependence can be well explained with the soft gluon approach proposed in , in which relativistic correction for charmonia is taken into account and predictions are made without free parameters.

In previous approaches the nonperturbative properties of charmonium is described by light-cone wave-functions, which are defined with operators classified by twists. For diffractive photoproduction only a leading-twist wave-function is used. It is then questionable if contributions from higher-twist wave-functions are suppressed or not, and also for consistency of the twist-expansion the c-quark should be taken as a light quark and its mass $`m_c`$ should be neglected. However, taking $`m_c=0`$ will cause some problems in these approaches and hence $`m_c`$ is not neglected. Because the leading-twist wave-function is unknown, either a parameterization is introduced or it is related to the nonrelativistic wave-function of charmoina. By solving Schrödinger equation with a suitable potential, the nonrelativistic wave-function, then the leading-twist wave-function is obtained through a Lorentz boost. It is clear that certain free parameters are introduced for determining the leading-twist wave-function. For the interaction between the initial hadron and the $`c\overline{c}`$-pair one usually uses the small-size color dipole approximation, in which some modification is also introduced, e.g., in . Hence the color dipole approximation also contains some parameters, which need to be determined from other sources.

A new approach, which is different than the above discussed, is used to study diffractive photoproduction of $`J/\psi `$. In this approach the $`c`$-quark is taken as a heavy quark, hence one can use nonrelativistic QCD(NRQCD) to describe the nonperturbative property of charmonia by noting the fact that the $`c`$-quark in $`J/\psi `$ in its rest-frame moves with a small velocity $`v`$. A systematic expansion in $`v`$ can be employed. At leading order of $`v`$ the chamonium can be taken as a bound state of a $`c\overline{c}`$ pair. The interaction between the $`c\overline{c}`$ pair and the initial hadron is through exchange of gluons. These gluons are soft in the diffractive region. Because the c-quark is taken as a heavy quark, the heavy quark effective theory(HQET) can be used to study the exchange of soft gluons and an expansion in $`m_c^1`$ for the exchange can be performed systematically. This approach was first used to study the decay $`J/\psi e^+e^{}+\pi +\pi `$ where the two pions are soft. Keeping only leading orders, results for the S-matrix element are obtained and they are different than those in . The reason for this is discussed in detail in .

Considering the process

$$\gamma +pp+J/\psi $$
(2)
in the diffractive region, the differential cross-section in the approach in  is given by:

$$\frac{d\sigma }{dt}|_{t0}=\frac{4}{9}\frac{Q_c^2\alpha _em}{s^2m_c^5}J/\psi |O_1(^3S_1)|J/\psi \overline{}|T_R|^2\{1+𝒪(\frac{\mathrm{\Lambda }_{QCD}}{m_c})+𝒪(v^2)\},$$
(3)
where $`\overline{}`$ is the summation over spin of the final hadron $`h`$ and the spin average of the initial hadron. $`t`$ is the squared momentum transfer between protons. The matrix element $`J/\psi |O_1(^3S_1)|J/\psi `$ is defined with NRQCD fields and is related to the leptonic decay width

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }(J/\psi e^+e^{})=\alpha _{em}^2Q_c^2\frac{2\pi }{3m_c^2}J/\psi |O_1(^3S_1)|J/\psi \{1+𝒪(v^2)\}.$$
(4)
The nonperturbative effect of the initial proton is represented by $`T_R`$ and $`T_R`$ is defined by a matrix element of field strength operators, which are separated in the moving direction of $`J/\psi `$ in the space-time. In the case $`sm_c`$, the contribution from leading-twist operator is dominant and $`T_R`$ can be related to the usual gluon distribution $`g(x)`$ by:

$$T_R|_{t0}i\pi ^2m_c\alpha _s^2(m_c)g(x_c)\left[1i\mathrm{tan}(\frac{1}{2}\alpha \pi )\right],$$
(5)
with

$$x_c=\frac{2m_c^2}{s}.$$
(6)
The term with $`\mathrm{tan}(\frac{1}{2}\alpha \pi )`$ is obtained by assuming $`xg(x)x^\alpha `$ for $`x0`$. In Eq.(5) we have set the renormalization scale $`\mu `$ to be $`m_c`$. The total cross section is obtained by:

$$\frac{d\sigma (J/\psi )}{dt}=\frac{d\sigma (J/\psi )}{dt}|_{t0}\mathrm{exp}^{b_{J/\psi }|t|},$$
(7)
where the slope parameter $`b`$ is measured in experiment for $`J/\psi `$ and for $`\psi (2S)`$.

It should be noted that at the orders we consider $`J/\psi `$ has the same helicity as that of the initial photon and the final proton also has the same helicity as that of the initial one. In Eq.(3) and (4) we also give the orders of theoretical errors. One of errors is from the expansion in $`m_c^1`$ for the exchange of soft gluons, which is at the order of $`\lambda _{QCD}/m_c`$. The parameter $`\lambda _{QCD}`$ is the typical scale of nonperturbative QCD and is at order of several hundreds MeV. Another is the relativistic correction at order of $`v^2`$, because we only used leading order in the expansion in $`v`$ for $`J/\psi `$. These errors are likely very large and result in that the predicted cross-section of $`J/\psi `$ is not in agreement with experiment. For $`\mathrm{{\rm Y}}`$, these errors are significantly smaller than those for $`J/\psi `$, and the predicted cross-section of $`\mathrm{{\rm Y}}`$ agrees with experiment fairly well. Although these errors are large for charmonia, but some of them is cancelled in the ratio defined in Eq.(1), e.g., the error at order of $`\lambda _{QCD}/m_c`$. Using the above results we obtain the prediction:

$$R=\frac{b_{J/\psi }}{b_{\psi (2S)}}\frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }(\psi (2S)e^+e^{})}{\mathrm{\Gamma }(J/\psi e^+e^{})}\left\{1+𝒪(v^2)\right\}.$$
(8)
In this ratio some corrections at higher orders of $`\alpha _s`$ are also cancelled. Using the experimentally measured slop parameters $`b_{J/\psi }=(4.99\pm 0.13\pm 0.39)`$GeV2 and $`b_{\psi (2S)}=(4.31\pm 0.57\pm 0.46)`$GeV2, and the experimental data for the leptonic decay widths we obtain:

$$R0.47.$$
(9)
This is almost three times of the experimentally measured. With the prediction the ratio in Eq.(1) should have no $`s`$-dependence. Experimentally the dependence is observed and is parameterized by $`Rs^\delta `$ with $`\delta =0.24\pm 0.17`$. This is also in conflict with our prediction.

It is clear that the relativistic correction plays an important role for predicting the ratio. The correction is unknown and requires to be analyzed. The analysis for this correction will be in general complicated. Nevertheless, in the framework of NRQCD the differential cross-section can be written as:

$$\frac{d\sigma (J/\psi )}{dt}|_{t0}=𝒜_1J/\psi |O_1(^3S_1)|J/\psi +𝒜_2J/\psi |P_1(^3S_1)|J/\psi +𝒪(v^4),$$
(10)
where $`𝒜_1`$ can be read from Eq.(3) and $`𝒜_2`$ is unknown. The relativistic correction is characterized by the matrix element $`J/\psi |P_1(^3S_1)|J/\psi `$, whose definition can be found in . With equation of motion it can be shown :

$$J/\psi |P_1(^3S_1)|J/\psi =m_c(M_{J/\psi }2m_c)J/\psi |O_1(^3S_1)|J/\psi \{1+𝒪(v^2)\}.$$
(11)
Replacing $`J/\psi `$ with $`\psi (2S)`$ one obtains the relation for matrix elements of $`\psi (2S)`$. It should be noted that the pole mass $`m_c`$ is not well determined yet, it lies in the range from 1.3GeV to 1.7GeV. Based on the relation in Eq.(11) an estimation of relativistic corrections can be made if one takes $`m_c`$ is free parameter and sets $`2m_c=M_{J/\psi }`$ for $`J/\psi `$ and $`2m_c=M_{\psi (2S)}`$ for $`\psi (2S)`$ respectively, then the error due to relativistic correction at order $`v^2`$ is absent formally and the correction is taken into account. With this setting it has been shown that one could reduce the violation of the famous $`14\%`$ in the case of radiative decays into $`\eta ^{}`$ of $`J/\psi `$ and $`\psi (2S)`$. However, it should be noted that this should be regarded as a phenomenological estimation, a detailed analysis and a precise determination of $`m_c`$ is needed to study the correction in a consistent way.

Using the setting we obtain the ratio as:

$$R=\frac{b_{J/\psi }}{b_{\psi (2S)}}\frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }(\psi (2S)e^+e^{})}{\mathrm{\Gamma }(J/\psi e^+e^{})}\frac{\alpha _s(\frac{1}{2}M_{\psi (2S)})}{\alpha _s(\frac{1}{2}M_{J/\psi })}\left(\frac{M_{J/\psi }}{M_{\psi (2S)}}\right)^5\left[\frac{x_2g(x_2)}{x_1g(x_1)}\right]^2,$$
(12)
with

$$x_2=\frac{M_{\psi (2S)}^2}{2s},x_1=\frac{M_{J/\psi }^2}{2s}.$$
(13)
In Eq.(12) we have neglected the terms with $`\mathrm{tan}(\frac{1}{2}\alpha \pi )`$. This term has little effect on the ratio. With available gluon distributions we obtain numerical results given in Fig.1, where the experimental data in  is also drawn.

From Fig.1 we can see that the prediction based on Eq.(12) agrees with experimental data very well. Also, the weak $`s`$-dependence is predicted in which $`R`$ increases with increasing $`s`$. This agreement shows clearly how important the relativistic correction for charmonia is. From Eq.(12) one can see that the most important factor is $`(M_{J/\psi }/M_{\psi (2S)})^5=0.419`$ for reducing the predicted $`R`$-value in Eq.(9). Hence, the relativistic correction in $`R`$ can be larger than $`50\%`$. It should be noted that by taking $`2m_c=M_{J/\psi }`$ for $`J/\psi `$ and $`2m_c=M_{\psi (2S)}`$ for $`\psi (2S)`$ respectively the uncertainty from $`𝒪(\lambda _{QCD}/m_c)`$ in Eq.(3) will be not cancelled in the ratio defined in Eq.(1), but it appears in the ratio at order of $`\lambda _{QCD}(M_{\psi (2S)}M_{J/\psi })/(M_{J/\psi }M_{\psi (2S)})0.03`$ by taking $`\lambda _{QCD}=500`$MeV, hence the uncertainty is essentially smaller in the ratio than that in the differential cross-sections.

For $`\mathrm{{\rm Y}}`$-systems, if we neglect the relativistic correction and correction from higher orders of $`m_b^1`$, we obtain the ratio

$$\frac{\sigma (\mathrm{{\rm Y}}(2S))}{\sigma (\mathrm{{\rm Y}}(1S))}=\frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }(\mathrm{{\rm Y}}(2S)e^+e^{})}{\mathrm{\Gamma }(\mathrm{{\rm Y}}(1S)e^+e^{})}0.39,$$
(14)
where we assume the same slope parameters for $`\mathrm{{\rm Y}}(1S)`$ and $`\mathrm{{\rm Y}}(2S)`$. If we take the relativistic correction in analogy to Eq.(12) into account, i.e., by taking $`2m_b=M_{\mathrm{{\rm Y}}(1S)}`$ for $`\mathrm{{\rm Y}}(1S)`$ and $`2m_b=M_{\mathrm{{\rm Y}}(2S)}`$ for $`\mathrm{{\rm Y}}(2S)`$ respectively, we obtain numerical results for the ratio with available gluon distributions. The results are given in Fig.2. From Fig.2 we can see that the predicted ratio has a significant deviation from the one given in Eq.(14). Again, the most important factor here for reducing the value given in Eq.(14) is $`(M_{\mathrm{{\rm Y}}(1S)}/M_{\mathrm{{\rm Y}}(2S)})^5=0.75`$. This indicates that the relativistic correction in the ratio is also significant and this significance may be beyond the expectation based on that the $`b`$-quark moves inside a $`\mathrm{{\rm Y}}`$-system with a velocity $`v^20.1`$. The reason for the significance in the ratio may be explained by the following: The pole mass $`m_b`$ is known more precisely than $`m_c`$. A lattice determination gives $`m_b=5.0\pm 0.2`$GeV. With this value and experimental data of masses of $`\mathrm{{\rm Y}}`$-systems, one knows that the matrix element of relativistic correction for $`\mathrm{{\rm Y}}(1S)`$ in Eq.(10) is negative, while for $`\mathrm{{\rm Y}}(2S)`$ it is positive, based on the similar relation given in Eq.(11) for the case of $`J/\psi `$. It results in that the relativistic correction in the ratio is the sum of absolute values of the both corrections. Hence, the correction is significant. Experimentally, the ratio is not measured. If it is measured, then our prediction given in Fig.2. can be tested.

To summarize: In the soft gluon approach for diffractive photoproduction of $`1^{}`$ charmonium we take $`c`$-quark as a heavy quark, this allows one to use NRQCD to describe nonperturbative properties of the quarkonium and to use HQET to handle the exchange of soft gluons between the $`c\overline{c}`$-pair and the initial proton. In this letter we use this approach to predict the ratio of the cross sections of $`J/\psi `$ and $`\psi (2S)`$. It is shown that the prediction by adding relativistic correction is in good agreement with the recently measured ratio. This indicates that the relativistic correction is very important for charmonia. Finally, it should be noted that our estimation for relativistic correction is a phenomenological estimation based on theoretical results, a detailed analysis and an precise determination of $`m_c`$ is needed to study the correction in a consistent way.

Acknowledgments

The work of J. P. Ma is supported by National Nature Science Foundation of P. R. China and by the Hundred Young Scientist Program of Academia Sinica of P. R. China, the work of J. S. Xu is supported by the Postdoctoral Foundation of P. R. China and by the K. C. Wong Education Foundation, Hong Kong.


text:
# Constraining the Location of Microlensing Objects towards the LMC through Parallax Measurement in EAGLE Observations

## 1 Introduction

Several groups have carried out gravitational microlensing observations towards the Large Magellanic Cloud (LMC) in order to search for MAssive Compact Halo Objects (MACHOs) in the Galactic halo. Until now, 13-17 candidates have been found towards the LMC and the microlensing optical depth $`\tau `$ from the events is $`1.2_{0.3}^{+0.4}\times 10^7`$ (Alcock et al. 2000b). The estimated typical lens mass depends on the adopted Galactic kinematic model ranging over $`0.011M_{}`$ (Alcock et al. 2000b; Honma & Kan-ya 1998).

We have learned that there are lens objects along the line of sight towards the LMC. However, the issues of where lens objects are and what they are, are still unclear. This is because a degeneracy occurs in ordinary microlensing events for which the amplification is described by (Paczyński 1986)

$$A(u)=\frac{u^2+2}{u\sqrt{u^2+4}}\frac{1}{u}\text{ for }u1\text{,}$$
(1)
where $`u`$ is the projected separation of the source and lens in units of the the Einstein radius $`R_\mathrm{E}`$, which is given by

$$R_\mathrm{E}(M,x)=\sqrt{\frac{4GM}{c^2}D_\mathrm{s}x(1x)}.$$
(2)
Here $`M`$ is the lens mass, $`x=D_\mathrm{d}/D_\mathrm{s}`$ is the normalized lens distance and $`D_\mathrm{d}`$ and $`D_\mathrm{s}`$ are the observer-lens and the observer-source star distances. $`D_\mathrm{s}`$ is hereafter assumed to be $`50`$ kpc. The time variation of the parameter $`u=u(t)`$ is

$$u(t)=\sqrt{\beta ^2+\left(\frac{tt_0}{t_\mathrm{E}}\right)^2},$$
(3)
where $`\beta `$, $`t_0`$, $`t_\mathrm{E}=R_\mathrm{E}(M,x)/v_\mathrm{t}`$ and $`v_\mathrm{t}`$ are the minimum impact parameter in units of $`R_\mathrm{E}`$, the time of maximum magnification, the event time-scale and the transverse velocity of the lens relative to the line of sight towards the source star, respectively. From a light curve, one can determine the value of $`\beta `$, $`t_0`$ and $`t_\mathrm{E}`$, where $`M`$, $`x`$ and $`v_\mathrm{t}`$ are degenerate in $`t_\mathrm{E}`$. This three-fold degeneracy is the essential difficulty in determining the nature of the lens objects. There are only marginally possible candidates, viz. old white dwarfs (Alcock et al. 1997, 2000b; Hansen 1998), old brown dwarfs (Honma & Kan-ya 1998) and primordial black holes (Ioka, Tanaka & Nakamura 2000).

Possibilities for non-halo lensing objects have also been discussed, for example, dark objects in a dark heavy component of the LMC itself (Aubourg et al. 1999; Gyuk, Dalal & Griest 2000; Alcock et al. 2001). There is also the possibility that the lenses are dark objects in the Galactic thick disc. While the microlensing optical depth $`\tau `$ by known populations of stars in the Galactic thin disc and thick disc is of order $`10^9`$ (Alcock et al. 2000b), a maximal heavy thick disc, which may be surrounded by an extended dark halo composed of particles, is also a possible Galactic component as the reservoir of lenses (Gates, Gyuk & Turner 1995; Gates, et al. 1998). Such a thick disc can have $`\tau 7\times 10^8`$ (Gould 1994a; Gould, Miralda-Escude & Bahcall 1994), so the summed optical depth including the contribution from the Galactic thin disc ($`2\times 10^8`$) and the LMC itself ($`1\times 10^8`$, Sahu 1994) can be close to the observed value.

The three-fold degeneracy can be resolved in some kinds of exotic microlensing events, e.g., the binary event (Hardy & Warker 1995; Albrow et al. 1999; Alcock et al. 1999a; Honma 1999; Afonso et al. 2000; An & Gould 2001) and the finite source transit event (Gould 1992, 1994a; Nemiroff & Wickramasinghe 1994; Witt & Mao 1994; Peng 1997). Sumi & Honma (2000) pointed out that an extensive transit events search would make it possible to discriminate between the lenses in the Galactic halo and in the LMC.

The third example is an event with parallax effect, which is essentially detected through the difference of light curves due to the spatial shift of an observer or observers. In such events we could determine the “reduced transverse velocity” $`\stackrel{~}{v}=v_\mathrm{t}/(1x)`$ of the lens. Examples of the parallax effects are the following. The annual parallax effect due to the Earth’s motion around the Sun during an event leads an asymmetry in the light curve (e.g. Gould 1992; Gould, Miralda-Escude & Bahcall 1994; Miyamoto & Yoshii 1995; Alcock et al. 1995; Mao 1999; Bennett et al. 2001; Bond et al. 2001; Soszyński et al. 2001; Smith, Mao & Woźniak 2002; Mao et al. 2002). However, such events are rare. This parallax effect generally requires $`t_\mathrm{E}>100`$ days, while $`t_\mathrm{E}40`$ days for typical events. Another effect is parallax by the positional difference of two well-separated observation sites. In this case, we could measure the relative difference of the peak amplifications and the time at the peak amplifications between both. By observing an event from both a solar-orbit satellite and the Earth, we could utilize the parallax effect in almost every event, while it is difficult from two distant observatories on the Earth (Refsdal 1966; Gould 1994b, 1995b; Holz & Wald 1996). Furthermore, the parallax could be measured by the positional shift of an observer due to the diurnal motion of the Earth, which was first advanced by An et al. (2002), and due to the orbital motion of an Earth-orbit space telescope such as the Hubble Space Telescope (HST) (Honma 1999) in binary events. In ordinary microlensing events this effect is quite small, but it is more efficient around the peak of high magnification events.

For Galactic bulge events, Gould (1997) discussed the possibility of detecting the finite source size and parallax effects by using two distinct ground-based telescopes in order to break the degeneracy in EME’s (Extreme Microlensing Events, $`A>200`$). With an approximate estimate for EME observations towards the LMC, he concluded that it is not feasible. However, with a more careful estimate, Nakamura & Nishi (1998) showed that it is feasible to detect EAGLE (Extremely Amplified Gravitational LEnsing) towards the LMC. EAGLE is similar to the so-called ”Pixel lensing” events (Gould 1996) but more simply defined as the events in which the source star is dimmer than observational limiting magnitude (ex. $`V_{obs}=2122`$), and not concerned whether the source star is resolved or not. Some EAGLEs would be EME’s. EAGLE events could be efficiently detected with the “image subtraction method” or ”Difference Image Analysis (DIA)” (Alard & Lupton 1998; Alard 2000; Alcock et al. 1999b, 2000a; Woźniak 2000; Bond et al. 2001), which has been recently developed and can perform more accurate photometry than DoPHOT and Pixel lensing method. So, we refer the term EAGLE in this paper.

If lens objects are in the thin or thick disc (disc events), $`R_\mathrm{E}`$ projected onto the observer plane from the source star,

$$\stackrel{~}{R_\mathrm{E}}(M,x)\frac{R_\mathrm{E}(M,x)}{1x}\sqrt{\frac{x}{1x}},$$
(4)
is much smaller than that for halo events. In this case the light curve is more sensitive to the small displacement of the observer position. Therefore the fraction of parallax-measurable EAGLE events out of all EAGLE events for disc events will be much larger than that for halo events. This fraction is useful to discriminate statistically whether the lens objects are mainly in the thick disc or not.

Here, we estimate the rate of parallax-measurable EAGLE events towards the LMC. In § 2 we summarize the basic equations of EAGLE events. In § 3 EAGLE event rates are estimated. In § 4 and 5 we describe the measurement of parallax effect from space and ground telescopes, respectively. In § 6 we calculate the fraction of parallax-measurable events. Discussion and conclusion are given in § 7.

## 2 Basic Formulae for EAGLE events

An EAGLE event is a microlensing event in which a source star is fainter than the observational limiting magnitude. A highly amplified faint source would be detected as a new star. Nakamura & Nishi (1998) showed that the EAGLE event rate is fairly high towards the LMC. However an EAGLE search has not been involved in the microlensing surveys based on a DoPHOT-type PSF fitting photometry, which only measure already detected stars.

A new CCD photometry method called DIA, in which an exposure frame is directly compared with a reference frame, enables much more accurate photometry at any place where any star isn’t identified on the reference. This is more powerful for detecting EAGLE events than the DoPHOT. Many EAGLE events are expected to be found by DIA.

### 2.1 Detection threshold

A dim invisible source star with $`V`$-band apparent magnitude $`V`$ must be amplified brighter than EAGLE detection threshold $`V_{\mathrm{th}}`$, which is slightly brighter than the observational limit $`V_{\mathrm{obs}}`$. So, the threshold amplitude is written as

$$A_\mathrm{T}(V)10^{0.4(VV_{\mathrm{th}})}.$$
(5)
A corresponding threshold impact parameter $`u_\mathrm{T}=u_\mathrm{T}(A_\mathrm{T}(V))`$ which is the largest impact parameter to be detected as an EAGLE event depends on $`V`$ and $`V_{\mathrm{th}}`$. This can be approximately written as (Nakamura & Nishi 1998)

$$u_\mathrm{T}(V)10^{0.4(VV_{\mathrm{th}})}.$$
(6)
## 3 Galactic model and event rate

Here we give adopted models of the Galaxy and source stars, and estimate the event rate. Since only the relative event rate is discussed, common constant factors $`C`$, $`f`$, and the normalization of the luminosity function are not essential.

When we consider microlensing by lens objects in the maximal disc (‘disc events’), we adopt an exponential disc as the mass density distribution for the Galactic thin and thick disc. Since the line of sight to the LMC is almost tangential to the azimuthal direction in the Galaxy, the mass density at the region efficient to microlensing is not strongly dependent on the Galactocentric radius $`r`$ but only on the height from the disc plane $`z`$, as long as the disc scale height is much smaller than $`r8.5`$ kpc. So we assume the disc density distribution only depends on $`z`$ as

$$\rho (z)=\frac{\mathrm{\Sigma }}{2h}\mathrm{exp}\left(\frac{z}{h}\right),$$
(7)
where $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ is the local disc column density and $`h`$ is the scale height of the disc. For the thin and thick disc we set $`h_{\mathrm{thin}}=350`$ pc and $`h_{\mathrm{thick}}=1400`$ pc respectively. A certain acceptable value is $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_{\mathrm{thin}}50`$ $`M_{}`$ pc-2 (cf. Kuijken & Gilmore 1989). If we adopt this value, due to the maximal disc limit of $`100`$ $`M_{}`$ pc-2 estimated from the rotation speed of the Galaxy (Binney & Tremaine 1987), $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_{\mathrm{thick}}50`$ $`M_{}`$ pc-2 (Gilmore & Reid 1983; Gould 1994a; Gould, Miralda-Escude & Bahcall 1994). However, the value of the local column density for each disc may be different (cf. Kuijken & Gilmore 1989; Bahcall, Flynn & Gould 1992; Creze et al. 1998; Holmberg & Flynn 2000). So we take $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ as a model parameter assuming that the combined mass of the thin and thick discs does not exceed the maximal disc limit. We change the fraction of each component within this limit, i.e., $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_{\mathrm{thin}}(\mathrm{\Sigma }_{\mathrm{thick}})=30(70),50(50)`$ and $`70(30)`$ $`M_{}`$ pc-2.

For the disc events we assume the power-law mass function $`\varphi (M)`$ of lens objects defined by equations (9) and (10) in Sumi & Honma (2000). The number density of lens objects with the mass between $`M`$ and $`M+dM`$ is given by $`n(M,x)dM=f\rho (z(x))\varphi (M)dM/M`$, where $`f`$ is the mass fraction of the lens objects to the total mass and is assumed to be constant. We take the upper limit of mass $`M_\mathrm{u}=50`$ $`M_{}`$ and treat the lower limit $`M_\mathrm{l}`$ and the power-law index $`\alpha _\mathrm{d}`$ as model parameters as $`M_\mathrm{l}=0.1`$ or $`0.01M_{}`$ and $`\alpha _\mathrm{d}=2.35`$ or $`5`$, i.e., we assume both the ordinary (Salpeter IMF) and an extreme model for a darker population of stars as a constituent of the maximal disc. Our main results do not depend on this index very much (see § 6). For the luminosity function of the source stars in the LMC, $`\varphi _\mathrm{L}(V)`$, we follow equations (15) and (16) in Sumi & Honma (2000) with the IMF index $`\alpha _\mathrm{s}=2.35`$, which is consistent with the luminosity function of the LMC observed by using the HST (Holtzman 1997).

For MACHOs (‘halo events’), we adopt the spherical ‘standard’ halo model given by (Alcock et al. 2000b)

$$\rho _{\mathrm{halo}}(r)=\rho _0\frac{a^2+r_0^2}{a^2+r^2},$$
(8)
where $`\rho _0=0.0079`$ $`M_{\mathrm{}}`$ pc-3 is the local mass density, $`r`$ is the Galactocentric radius, $`r_0=8.5`$ kpc is the Galactocentric distance of the Sun, and $`a=5`$ kpc is the core radius. We adopt delta-function mass functions with $`M=0.1`$ and $`0.5`$ $`M_{}`$ because the lens mass function is not well known.

For the observational parameters we assume $`V_{\mathrm{obs}}=21`$, which is a typical value for current microlensing programs with a 1-m class telescope. The events with the source star having $`V<21`$ are normal microlensing events, while ones with $`V>21`$ are EAGLE events. We consider two different values for the threshold magnitude; $`V_{\mathrm{th}}`$ = 19 and 20.

The event rates of normal microlensing events ($`\mathrm{\Gamma }_\mathrm{N}`$) and EAGLEs ($`\mathrm{\Gamma }_\mathrm{E}`$), which are proportional to $`R_\mathrm{E}`$ and $`u_\mathrm{T}R_\mathrm{E}`$ respectively, are given by

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }_\mathrm{N}=C_0^1D_s𝑑x_{V_\mathrm{l}}^{V_{\mathrm{obs}}}𝑑V_{M_\mathrm{l}}^{M_\mathrm{u}}𝑑MR_\mathrm{E}v_\mathrm{t}\varphi _\mathrm{L}(V)n(M,x),$$
(9)
$$\mathrm{\Gamma }_\mathrm{E}=C_0^1D_s𝑑x_{V_{\mathrm{obs}}}^{V_\mathrm{u}}𝑑V_{M_\mathrm{l}}^{M_\mathrm{u}}𝑑Mu_\mathrm{T}R_\mathrm{E}v_\mathrm{t}\varphi _\mathrm{L}(V)n(M,x),$$
(10)
where $`V_\mathrm{u}=30`$ and $`V_\mathrm{l}=16`$ are the upper and lower limit of the luminosity function. Note that the integration is performed $`V<V_{\mathrm{obs}}`$ for $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_\mathrm{N}`$ and $`V>V_{\mathrm{obs}}`$ for $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_\mathrm{E}`$.

We calculate the relative EAGLE event rate $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_\mathrm{E}/\mathrm{\Gamma }_\mathrm{N}`$ for disc events, with the finite source size effect included. The results for $`V_{\mathrm{th}}=`$ 19 and 20 are $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_\mathrm{E}/\mathrm{\Gamma }_\mathrm{N}=0.73`$ and 1.83, respectively, only weakly dependent on parameters of the disc structure $`(\mathrm{\Sigma },h)`$ and the mass function ($`\alpha _\mathrm{d}`$, $`M_\mathrm{l}`$). This ratio depends on the luminosity function of source stars. As a result, only in the most extreme case that $`V_{\mathrm{th}}=19`$, $`\alpha _\mathrm{d}=5.0`$ and $`M_\mathrm{l}=0.01`$ $`M_{}`$, this ratio is slightly decreased due to finite source size effects. In the case that $`V_{\mathrm{th}}=20`$ and $`\alpha _\mathrm{d}=2.35`$, we found that this effect is not negligible only when $`M_\mathrm{l}<10^4`$. For halo events, the events affected by finite source size effects are only several percent out of all EAGLE events (Sumi & Honma 2000). So hereafter we neglect the finite source size effect.

For events in which the source star is $`V>25`$, the period in which the source is visible ($`V<21`$) is less than 2 days. Then the detection efficiency for such events should be very low. So we estimated $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_\mathrm{E}/\mathrm{\Gamma }_\mathrm{N}`$ in the case that the source star is $`V<25`$, and found $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_\mathrm{E}/\mathrm{\Gamma }_\mathrm{N}=0.59`$ and 1.47 with $`V_{\mathrm{th}}=19`$ and 20, respectively. We checked this ratio in the conservative case of a gentler slope $`\alpha _\mathrm{s}=2.0`$ with $`V_{\mathrm{th}}=20`$ and $`V<25`$, and found it to be 1.15. This is still sufficiently high.

In this paper, we assume that microlensing events (normal and EAGLE) would be detected by a 1-m class alert telescope and the real-time analyses with DIA, and then follow-up observations would be performed by an Earth-orbit space telescope or a large ground-based telescope.

## 4 Parallax from Space telescope

Here we describe the parallax effect observed with an Earth-orbit space telescope such as the HST. In the following analysis, we use the coordinate system which is used in Honma (1999), i.e., the origin is set to be the centre of the Earth, and $`z`$-axis is set to be in the direction of the source star. The $`x`$-axis is set to be perpendicular to both of the z-axis and the orbital axis of the space telescope. The inclination $`i`$ of the telescope orbit is defined as an angle between the $`z`$-axis and the orbital axis. We also assume that the space telescope is in a circular orbit with radius $`r_{\mathrm{st}}`$ and angular velocity $`\omega `$. The position of the telescope projected onto the observer plane (x-y plane) is written as

$$𝐓=[r_{\mathrm{st}}\mathrm{cos}(\omega t+\delta ),r_{\mathrm{st}}\mathrm{sin}(\omega t+\delta )\mathrm{cos}i].$$
(11)
Here the angle $`\delta `$ describes the position of the space telescope at $`t=t_0`$. Observed from the centre of the Earth, the position of the lens object on the lens plane is given by

$$𝐋_𝐄=[v_\mathrm{t}(tt_0)\mathrm{cos}\theta b\mathrm{sin}\theta ,v_\mathrm{t}(tt_0)\mathrm{sin}\theta +b\mathrm{cos}\theta ],$$
(12)
where $`\theta `$ is the angle between the $`x`$-axis and the direction of the transverse velocity of the lens $`v_\mathrm{t}`$ and $`b`$ is the minimum physical distance between the lens and the source-Earth line of sight. The position of the lens relative to the space telescope on the lens plane is given by

$$𝐋_𝐓=𝐋_𝐄(1x)𝐓.$$
(13)
Then from the space telescope $`u(t)`$ is written as

$$u^{}(t)^2=\left\{\frac{1}{t_\mathrm{E}}(tt_0)\mathrm{cos}\theta \beta \mathrm{sin}\theta ϵ\mathrm{cos}(\omega t+\delta )\right\}^2$$

$$+\left\{\frac{1}{t_\mathrm{E}}(tt_0)\mathrm{sin}\theta +\beta \mathrm{cos}\theta ϵ\mathrm{sin}(\omega t+\delta )\mathrm{cos}i\right\}^2,$$
(14)
where $`ϵ=r_{\mathrm{st}}/\stackrel{~}{R}_\mathrm{E}`$. Equation (14) shows that the parallax effect due to the telescope motion causes a wavy trajectory of the lens object relative to that from the centre of the Earth. For orbital parameters for the space telescope, we assumed $`r_{\mathrm{st}}=7000`$ km, $`i=30^{}`$ and $`P_{\mathrm{orb}}=2\pi /\omega =97`$ min, which are similar to those of the HST.

We show sample light curves without ($`A(u)`$, thin line) and with ($`A(u^{})`$, thick line) the parallax in Fig. 1a, as well as the difference of the two $`\delta A=A(u^{})A(u)`$ in Fig. 1b in the case with $`t_\mathrm{E}=5`$ days, $`v_t=30`$ km s-1, $`x=0.01`$, $`\beta =0.05`$, $`\theta =90^{}`$ and $`\delta =0^{}`$. Hereafter in the case using the HST, we take $`\delta =0^{}`$ since $`\delta `$ is a random parameter related with just a phase of orbit. We ensured that this does not affect our main results. In the light curve from the space telescope, the small wavy perturbation from that observed from the centre of the Earth can be seen. In the $`\delta A`$ light curve in Fig. 1b, we can clearly see that the fluctuation due to the parallax is enhanced around the peak.

From the observation, we can derive the $`ϵ`$ and $`\theta `$ in addition to other parameters $`t_\mathrm{E}`$, $`\beta `$, $`t_0`$ and $`f_0`$. From $`ϵ`$ and $`t_\mathrm{E}`$ we can derive the “reduced velocity” $`\stackrel{~}{v}`$ as follows

$$\stackrel{~}{v}=\frac{r_{\mathrm{st}}}{ϵt_\mathrm{E}}.$$
(15)
The reduced transverse velocity represents the projected relative transverse velocity between the source star and the lensing object and will be of great use in investigating the lens location because this value for each component (halo, thick disc, and thin disc) is different (about $`240`$ km s-1, $`50`$ km s-1 and $`30`$ km s-1, respectively) and hence for disc events $`\stackrel{~}{v}`$ is $`8`$ times smaller than that for halo events.

The rate of parallax-measurable microlensing events depends on the uncertainty of $`\stackrel{~}{v}`$ which is given by

$`\sigma _{\stackrel{~}{v}}`$ $`=`$ $`\left\{\left(\sigma _ϵ{\displaystyle \frac{\stackrel{~}{v}}{ϵ}}\right)^2+\left(\sigma _{t_\mathrm{E}}{\displaystyle \frac{\stackrel{~}{v}}{t_\mathrm{E}}}\right)^2\right\}^{\frac{1}{2}}`$ (16)
$`=`$ $`\stackrel{~}{v}\left\{\left({\displaystyle \frac{\sigma _ϵ}{ϵ}}\right)^2+\left({\displaystyle \frac{\sigma _{t_\mathrm{E}}}{t_\mathrm{E}}}\right)^2\right\}^{\frac{1}{2}},`$
where $`\sigma _ϵ`$ and $`\sigma _{t_\mathrm{E}}`$ are the errors in the $`ϵ`$ and $`t_\mathrm{E}`$. We assume that the required threshold accuracy to measure $`\stackrel{~}{v}`$ due to the parallax effect is 50%, i.e., $`\sigma _{\stackrel{~}{v}}/\stackrel{~}{v}<1/2`$, in this paper.

The general discussion to estimate the error or the variance of a set of parameters $`a_i`$ in fitting a distribution $`F(t,a_i)`$ is presented by, e.g., Gould (1995a, 1998) using the minimum variance bound given from a well-known theorem in statistics. The covariance matrix $`c_{ij}`$ with respect to $`a_i`$ for a series of measurements $`F(t_k)`$ at time $`t_k`$ with error $`\sigma _k`$ is given by

$$c_{ij}=b_{ij}^1,b_{ij}=\underset{k}{}\sigma _{F(t_k)}^2\frac{F(t_k)}{a_i}\frac{F(t_k)}{a_j}.$$
(17)
The variance of $`a_i`$ is just the diagonal elements $`c_{ii}`$.

We take $`F(t)`$ as the number of the detected photo-electrons at time $`t`$ from the source star. During a short time interval $`T`$, we get $`F(t)=(f_0(V)A(t;\beta ,t_\mathrm{E},t_0)+f_b)T`$, where $`f_0`$ denotes the average photo-electron flux from the unamplified source star and $`f_b`$ denotes the background flux in the PSF aperture from the sky and the unlensed blending stars. $`A(t;\beta ,t_\mathrm{E},t_0)`$ is the amplification produced by microlensing given by equations (1) and (3). By using the DIA, the signal is expressed as $`\mathrm{\Delta }F(t)=f_0(A1)`$ and $`\sigma _F(t)=\sqrt{F(t)}`$. Taking the limit $`T0`$, $`b_{ij}`$ in equation (17) is given by

$$b_{ij}_{t_{\mathrm{begin}}}^{t_{\mathrm{end}}}\frac{1}{f_0(V)A+f_b}\left[\frac{f_0(A1)}{a_i}\right]\left[\frac{f_0(A1)}{a_j}\right]𝑑t.$$
(18)
A parallax effect tends to be measured accurately in the case that $`f_0`$ is large, and/or $`\beta `$, $`v_\mathrm{t}`$, $`x`$ and/or $`M`$ are small.

We show the integrands of $`b_{ϵϵ}`$ and $`b_{ϵ\theta }`$ in Fig. 1c and 1d, respectively, in the case of the source magnitude of $`V=21`$ and with the same parameters as in Fig. 1a. Here we assumed $`f_0(V=20)=350`$ e- s-1 and $`f_b=10`$ e- s-1, which is similar to those of the HST with the Advanced Camera for Surveys (ACS) (Pavlovsky 2001). $`f_b`$ in the aperture of the PSF is estimated by taking account of the following sources; (1) Zodical light $`V_{\mathrm{ZL}}=23.3`$ mag arcsec-2, which is the smallest because the Ecliptic latitude of the LMC is $`90^{}`$. (2) Earth shine from the limb of the sunlit Earth $`V_{\mathrm{ES}}=21.4`$ mag arcsec-2, which is the mean when the angle $`\theta _{\mathrm{limb}}`$ between the target and the bright Earth limb is larger than 12. (3) Light from Blending stars $`V_{\mathrm{LMC}}=22.01`$ mag arcsec-2, which is the mean $`V`$-band surface brightness of the inner 10 deg2 of the LMC (de Vaucouleurs 1957). We reduced $`f_0(V)`$ and $`f_b`$ by a factor of $`3/4`$ because the LMC could not be observed when the HST is in shadow of the Earth and we limit $`\theta _{\mathrm{limb}}>12^{}`$. (Note: the phase when the observation would be interrupted is not always the same, because the actual orbit of the HST is not circle but the latitude of the HST is changing between $`30^{}`$ and $`30^{}`$.) We multiplied $`f_0(V)`$ and $`f_b`$ by $`0.9`$ taking account of the dead time of camera assuming $`5`$ minutes exposures.

In Fig. 1c and 1d, we can see that most of the information of $`ϵ`$ is in very short period ($`t_\mathrm{E}\beta `$) around the peak, and the correlation between $`ϵ`$ and $`\theta `$, i.e., $`b_{ϵ\theta }`$ is negligible in a day-period observation. Furthermore, we ensured that $`ϵ`$ is completely independent of other parameters.

We assume that the follow-up observation for EAGLE events would be carried out by the HST for one day from $`t_0`$. The extensive follow-up observations from ground-based small telescopes around the world make it possible to know $`t_0`$. We evaluate the uncertainty of the parameters $`\sigma _{a_i}`$ ($`a_i=ϵ,\theta ,t_\mathrm{E}`$). In Fig. 2, we show $`\sigma _{a_i}/a_i`$ as a function of $`\beta `$ for the case of the typical event time-scale of $`t_\mathrm{E}=40`$ days with same parameters used above except for $`\theta =45^{}`$. The $`\sigma _ϵ`$ is the minimum at $`\theta =90^{}`$ and the maximum at $`\theta =0^{}`$. Hereafter, we fixed $`\theta =45^{}`$ since $`\theta `$ is a random parameter. We ensured that the difference of the main results in § 6.2 between the case using fixed $`\theta =45^{}`$ and the case taking $`\theta `$ at random, is negligible.

Meanwhile $`t_\mathrm{E}`$ is highly correlated with other parameters, i.e., $`\beta `$, $`t_0`$ and $`f_0`$. If the event is observed symmetrically in time around $`t_0`$, $`t_\mathrm{E}`$ is completely independent of $`t_0`$ because $`t_0`$ is an odd parameter in time. However, in the case that the event would be observed for a day from $`t_0`$, $`t_\mathrm{E}`$ is no longer independent of $`t_0`$. In Fig. 2 we show (i) $`\sigma _{t_\mathrm{E}}/t_\mathrm{E}`$ (dotted line) and $`\sigma _{t_\mathrm{E}}/t_\mathrm{E}`$ under the condition that (ii) $`f_0`$ (3dotted-dashed line) or (iii) both $`f_0`$ and $`t_0`$ (dot-dashed line) are externally constrained. This (i) $`\sigma _{t_\mathrm{E}}`$ in which there is a $`f_0`$ would be much improved over using two different telescopes to measure the parallax in which there are two $`f_0`$. Though, comparing (i) and (ii), the former one deteriorates relative to the latter one because of degeneracies among the parameters $`t_E`$, $`\beta `$ and $`f_0`$, which is severe in the case that the event is observed only around the peak (Gould 1997; Han 1997). This can be improved by constraining $`f_0`$ by follow-up observation with the HST after the event (Han 1997). Hereafter we assume that $`f_0`$ would be constrained by the follow-up observation. As shown in Fig. 2, case (ii) is larger than (iii), but still quite small relative to $`\sigma _ϵ/ϵ`$. Especially in the region of $`\sigma _ϵ/ϵ<1/2`$, where we are concerned, $`\sigma _{t_\mathrm{E}}/t_\mathrm{E}`$ is at least 10 times smaller than $`\sigma _ϵ/ϵ`$. In the case for brighter source event ($`V<21`$), the contribution of $`\sigma _{t_\mathrm{E}}/t_\mathrm{E}`$ becomes slightly larger at $`\sigma _ϵ/ϵ1/2`$, but in this case $`t_0`$ could be constrained well from the overall light curve taken by ground-based telescopes. Then hereafter we neglect $`\sigma _{t_\mathrm{E}}/t_\mathrm{E}`$ in equation (16), i.e., we can rewrite equation (16) to $`\sigma _{\stackrel{~}{v}}/\stackrel{~}{v}\sigma _ϵ/ϵ`$.

From the curve of $`\sigma _ϵ/ϵ`$, we can obtain the critical impact parameter $`\beta _{\mathrm{crit}}`$ to detect an parallax effect with 50% accuracy, which corresponds to $`\sigma _ϵ/ϵ=1/2`$.

## 5 Parallax from Ground Telescope

Here we consider parallax measurements from an 8-m class telescope at a latitude of $`30^{}`$ on the Earth such as the Very Large Telescope (VLT). In this case the light curve would be expressed with the same equation as that from the HST (see equation (14)) except that the radius of the orbit is $`R_{\mathrm{orb}}=R_{}\mathrm{cos}30^{}=5500`$ km, the period is $`P_{\mathrm{orb}}=2\pi /\omega =1`$ day and we can observe events only during night-time. Here $`R_{}`$ is the Earth radius.

In Fig. 3, we show sample light curves of $`\delta A=A(u^{})A(u)`$ (a and d) and integrands of $`b_{ϵϵ}`$ (b and e) and $`b_{ϵ\beta }`$ (c and f) in the case of $`t_\mathrm{E}=40`$ days, $`v_\mathrm{t}=30`$ km s-1, $`x=0.01`$ and $`\beta =0.05`$. Here we assumed that observations are performed for 7 hours a day. Fig. 1a-c and 1d-f represent the case that the dark-side of the Earth is near to the lens relative to the centre of the Earth, i.e. $`\theta _\mathrm{N}\theta =90^{}`$, and the case that $`\theta _\mathrm{N}=\theta `$ respectively, where $`\theta _\mathrm{N}`$ is the angle between the centre of the observation night relative to the centre of the Earth and the x-axis. In this case, we can observe only some parts of the wavy light curve, and then $`ϵ`$ is highly correlated with other parameters, i.e., $`\theta `$, $`t_\mathrm{E}`$, $`\beta `$, $`t_0`$ and $`f_0`$. In the case of Fig. 3a-c, $`b_{ϵ\beta }`$ becomes large as well as $`b_{ϵϵ}`$, then $`\sigma _ϵ`$ becomes significantly larger than the case of Fig. 3d-f in which $`b_{ϵ\beta }`$ becomes quite small, as well as the other cross terms $`b_{ij}`$.

We estimate $`\sigma _ϵ`$ by the same procedure in § 4, i.e. evaluating the covariant matrix. In this case, we assume the photo-electron flux is $`f_0(V=20)2000`$ e- s-1 using an 8-m class telescope and thin CCD cameras with a filter near the V band with a relatively narrow bandwidth ($`100`$ nm). The very broad-band filter is not advisable because that might not be able to eliminate the effect of differential refraction or differential extinction of the atmosphere (Gould 1998). We reduce $`f_0(V)`$ and $`f_b`$ by a factor of 2 to take account of weather conditions and CCD camera dead time. We adopt the background flux $`f_\mathrm{b}=1200`$ e- s-1 corresponding to $`V=20.6`$ mag, which is estimated as follows: the mean V-band surface brightness of the inner 10 deg2 of the LMC is $`V=22.01`$ mag arcsec-2, and the sky value is $`V=21.6`$ mag arcsec-2 (de Vaucouleurs 1957). We assume the aperture of the PSF is $`0.49\pi `$ arcsec2 ($`0.7^{\prime \prime }`$ seeing) which is similar to the typical seeing of the VLT. The total brightness in the aperture is 20.6 mag. We adopt this value for $`f_\mathrm{b}`$. Here we assumed that the follow-up observation would be taken for three nights ( 7 hours a night) around the peak.

The LMC is visible enough ($``$ 7 hours) only during the southern summer (between equinoxes) from the site at a latitude of $`30^{}`$, which corresponds to that $`\theta _\mathrm{N}`$ is distributed at random between $`0^{}180^{}`$. $`\sigma _ϵ`$ is maximum at $`\theta _\mathrm{N}=0^{}`$ and $`180^{}`$ and minimum at $`\theta _\mathrm{N}=90^{}`$ because of the inclination of the orbit axis $`i=30^{}`$. Hereafter we use the mean value of $`\theta _\mathrm{N}=45^{}`$. We ensure that the difference of the main results in the following analyses between the case using the fixed $`\theta _\mathrm{N}=45^{}`$ and that using a random $`\theta _\mathrm{N}`$ is negligible. Anyway, this effect is much smaller than the dependence on $`\theta \theta _\mathrm{N}`$.

In Fig. 4, we show $`\sigma _ϵ/ϵ`$ under the condition that $`f_0`$ is externally constrained (thick line), $`\sigma _ϵ/ϵ`$ under the condition that all other parameters are externally constrained (thin line), which is shown to compare with the case using the HST, and $`\sigma _{t_\mathrm{E}}/t_\mathrm{E}`$ under the condition that $`f_0`$ is externally constrained (dashed line) as a function of $`\beta `$ in the case of $`t_\mathrm{E}=40`$ days, $`x=0.01`$, $`v_\mathrm{t}=30`$ km s-1, $`\theta _\mathrm{N}=45^{}`$, $`\delta =45^{}`$ and the source magnitude of $`V=21`$. Upper and lower panels represent the case of $`\theta =45^{}`$ (i.e. $`\theta _\mathrm{N}\theta =90^{}`$, which correspond to Fig. 1a-c) and the case of $`\theta =45^{}`$ (i.e. $`\theta _\mathrm{N}=\theta `$, which correspond to Fig. 1d-f), respectively. In this figure, $`\sigma _{\stackrel{~}{v}}/\stackrel{~}{v}`$ heavily depends on $`\theta _\mathrm{N}\theta `$, it especially deteriorates in the case of $`\theta _\mathrm{N}\theta =90^{}`$ relative to the thin line. In this case $`\sigma _{t_\mathrm{E}}/t_\mathrm{E}`$ is also negligible.

$`\delta =45^{}`$ is the most optimal case, i.e. one observes the peak at $`\theta _\mathrm{N}`$ in the second observation night. In actual $`\delta `$ depends on random parameters $`t_0`$ and $`\theta _\mathrm{N}`$, and how early one can start the follow-up. Fig. 5 show $`\sigma _ϵ/ϵ`$ as a function of $`\delta `$ in the case using same parameters in Fig. 4 and $`\beta =0.04`$, for the source magnitude of $`V=20,21,22,23`$ and $`24`$ (from bottom to top). Here we take the mean value of $`\sigma _ϵ/ϵ`$ over $`45^{}<\theta <135^{}`$ because the $`\theta `$ at which $`\sigma _ϵ/ϵ`$ is the maximum or minimum, is related with $`\delta `$. In Fig. 5 we can see $`\sigma _ϵ/ϵ`$ does not depend on $`\delta `$ very much, as long as observations are spread roughly around $`t_0`$, i.e. it does not need to cover the peak exactly. When the follow-up observation is delayed more than 1 day ($`\delta <300`$), it becomes worse especially for dimmer source events. This is worse for shorter time-scale events with much smaller $`\beta `$ because most of the information of the parameters is contained in a very short period ($`t_\mathrm{E}\beta `$) around the peak. Furthermore in extreme cases ($`t_\mathrm{E}10`$ days, $`\beta 0.01`$), generally $`\sigma _ϵ/ϵ`$ is small, however, it depends on whether the peak is covered exactly or not. This effect is large in dimmer source events ($`V>25`$).

From the curve of $`\sigma _ϵ/ϵ`$ we can also obtain $`\beta _{\mathrm{crit}}`$. We take the mean of $`\beta _{\mathrm{crit}}`$ over $`45^{}<\theta <135^{}`$. Uncertainty $`\sigma _ϵ`$ also depends on the direction of $`v_t`$. Note that this is negligible in the case using the HST. We take the mean of $`\beta _{\mathrm{crit}}`$ on the cases of $`v_t`$ and $`+v_t`$ (i.e. same and opposite direction relative to the Earth rotation, respectively) in § 6.2.

## 6 Fraction of Parallax-measurable events

Here we calculate the fraction of parallax-measurable events out of all events in the case of $`V_{\mathrm{th}}=20`$ and $`V_{\mathrm{obs}}=21`$. We adopt the same Galaxy density model and the source luminosity function as § 3. To make the estimation realistic, we applied a photometric error $`17\%`$ larger than the photon noise, which is estimated for the DIA (Woźniak 2000). Furthermore, we specify the typical (transverse) velocity of the lens objects to estimate parallax-measurable event rate.

### 6.1 Model kinematics

For disc events the typical transverse velocity of a lens object $`v_\mathrm{t}`$ is estimated as follows. First we assume that the thin and thick discs have the same rotation velocity and the relative velocity between the mean flow of the lens objects and the local standard of rest (LSR) is zero. In fact the effect of the drift velocity of the thick disc relative to the thin disc due to the large velocity dispersion of the thick disc is negligible compared to other effects. $`v_\mathrm{t}`$ is the composition of the tangential component of the mean velocity of the Earth relative to the LSR $`v_{}`$ and the velocity dispersion of the disc $`\sigma `$, which is assumed to be isotropic for both discs, as

$$v_\mathrm{t}^2(z)=2\sigma ^2(z)+v_{}^2.$$
(19)
We take $`v_{}=30`$ km s-1, which includes the orbital velocity of Earth around the Sun of $`30`$ km s-1 and a velocity of the Sun relative to LSR of 20km s-1 (Miyamoto & Zhu 1998). $`\sigma ^2(z)`$ and $`v_\mathrm{t}^2`$ are assumed to be a function of $`z`$ only (see the discussion on equation (7)). The density profile of the disc is same as in § 3, i.e., the exponential disc density distributions in equation (7) for thin ($`h_{\mathrm{thin}}=350`$ pc) and thick ($`h_{\mathrm{thick}}=1400`$ pc) discs with variable values of the local disc column density as $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_{\mathrm{thin}}(\mathrm{\Sigma }_{\mathrm{thick}})=30(70)`$, 50(50), 70(30) $`M_{}`$pc-2. Solving the Poisson equation for the density profile composed of the thin and the thick discs $`\sigma ^2(z)`$ is obtained from the $`z`$-component of the Jeans equation (e.g. Binney & Tremaine 1987) as

$$\sigma ^2(z)=\frac{\pi G}{2}\frac{\left[\mathrm{\Sigma }_{\mathrm{thin}}\mathrm{exp}\left(\frac{z}{h_{\mathrm{thin}}}\right)+\mathrm{\Sigma }_{\mathrm{thick}}\mathrm{exp}\left(\frac{z}{h_{\mathrm{thick}}}\right)\right]^2}{\rho _{\mathrm{thin}}(z)+\rho _{\mathrm{thick}}(z)}.$$
(20)
For halo events we adopt the same model as in § 3 and we assume $`v_\mathrm{t}=190`$ km s-1 or $`220`$ km s-1. $`v_\mathrm{t}=190`$ km s-1 is more plausible because of the slight contribution from the disc gravity to the rotation curve, which is assumed to be flat with $`v_{\mathrm{rot}}=220`$ km s-1.

### 6.2 Results

We estimate the relative parallax-measurable event rate. The parallax-measurable event rate is written as

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }_\mathrm{P}=C_0^1D_\mathrm{S}𝑑x_{V_\mathrm{l}}^{V_\mathrm{u}}𝑑V_{M_\mathrm{l}}^{M_\mathrm{u}}𝑑M$$

$$\beta _{\mathrm{crit}}(V,M,x,v_\mathrm{t}(z(x)))R_\mathrm{E}v_\mathrm{t}\varphi _\mathrm{L}(V)n(M,x),$$
(21)
where $`C`$ is the constant common to the expression of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_\mathrm{N}`$ (equation (9)) and $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_\mathrm{E}`$ (equation (10)). And $`V_\mathrm{u}=V_{\mathrm{obs}}`$ for the normal events and $`V_\mathrm{l}=V_{\mathrm{obs}}`$ for EAGLEs. $`\beta _{\mathrm{crit}}`$ is estimated by same procedure presented in § 4 and 5 for each parameter.

In Fig. 6 we show the relative event rate distributions of parallax-measurable events $`d\mathrm{\Gamma }_\mathrm{P}/dV`$ from the HST (upper panel) and from the VLT in the case of $`\delta =45^{}`$ (lower panel), normalized by $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_\mathrm{N}`$ (for $`V<V_{\mathrm{obs}}`$) or $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_\mathrm{E}`$ (for $`V>V_{\mathrm{obs}}`$) for thin disc, thick disc and halo events, as a function of source magnitude $`V`$ and for various combinations of $`M_\mathrm{l}`$ and $`\alpha _\mathrm{d}`$. We note that the absolute value of the vertical axis is not important because these distributions are relative ones. These distributions are to be compared with the relative event rate distribution for all events (the bold dotted line). The left side relative to the vertical dashed line corresponds to normal microlensing events and the right side is for EAGLE events. For disc events the greater $`\alpha _\mathrm{d}`$ or the smaller $`M_\mathrm{l}`$, the higher $`d\mathrm{\Gamma }_\mathrm{P}/dV`$ is. From Fig. 6 we can see that the event rate of parallax-measurable EAGLE events $`(V>21)`$ is much higher than that of normal microlensing events $`(V<21)`$. We can also see that for halo events the fraction of parallax-measurable events is still quite low even in EAGLE events. From the VLT (lower panel), we also show that distributions in the case of $`\delta =367.5^{}`$ (i.e. the case that the observation starts at $`t_0`$) for two cases of the thin and thick discs with $`M_l=0.01`$ and $`\alpha _d=2.35`$ as same line styles (lower one). From this figure, we can see that follow up observations by the VLT should be started $`1`$ day before $`t_0`$ to detect the parallax efficiently. Hereafter, we assume $`\delta =45^{}`$ for the case using the VLT.

We evaluate the ratio of the parallax-measurable EAGLE event rate to the parallax-measurable normal event rate $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_\mathrm{P}(V>V_{\mathrm{obs}})/\mathrm{\Gamma }_\mathrm{P}(V<V_{\mathrm{obs}})`$ in Table 1 for disc events with $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_{\mathrm{thin},\mathrm{thick}}=50`$ $`M_{}`$ pc-2 and in Table 2 for halo events with the lens mass of $`M=0.1`$ and $`0.5`$ $`M_{}`$ in the case of $`V<25`$ mag. From Table 1 and 2, it is clear that EAGLE events enlarge the opportunity of parallax measurements. The number of parallax-measurable EAGLE events is $`59`$ (from the HST) and $`610`$ (from the VLT) times larger than that of normal events for disc events. For halo events these are $`8`$ (from the HST) and $`46`$ (from the VLT) times larger than that of normal events. We hereafter refer $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_\mathrm{P}`$ as the parallax-measurable EAGLE event rate because most of the parallax-measurable events are EAGLE events.

In Table 3 we show the fractions of parallax-measurable EAGLE events out of all EAGLE events $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_\mathrm{P}/\mathrm{\Gamma }_\mathrm{E}`$ and corresponding mean event time-scales $`t_\mathrm{E}`$ for disc events in the case of $`V<25`$ mag. For $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_{\mathrm{thick}}(\mathrm{\Sigma }_{\mathrm{thin}})=30(70)`$, $`50(50)`$ and $`70(30)`$ $`M_{}`$ pc-2, the optical depths are $`3.84(2.43)`$, $`6.41(1.74)`$ and $`8.97(1.04)`$ in $`10^8`$, respectively, if $`f=1`$, although the common factor $`f`$ is not essential so long as a relative event rate is discussed, as noted in § 3. From Table 3, we see that $`t_E`$ is strongly affected by $`M_\mathrm{l}`$. $`M_\mathrm{l}=0.01M_{}`$ seems to be consistent with the observed value $`t_\mathrm{E}40`$ days (Alcock et al. 2000b) for the thick disc with $`\alpha _\mathrm{d}=2.35`$. $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_\mathrm{P}/\mathrm{\Gamma }_\mathrm{E}`$ only depends weakly on $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_{\mathrm{thin}|\mathrm{thick}}`$ and $`\alpha _\mathrm{d}`$111 In our disc model, $`v_\mathrm{t}`$ is larger for the larger $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_{\mathrm{thick}}`$ case, and so $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_\mathrm{P}/\mathrm{\Gamma }_\mathrm{E}`$ tends to be smaller. However for the thick disc from the HST it is inverse, because $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_\mathrm{P}`$ $`v_\mathrm{t}`$, which is large for small $`x`$ and this effect is slightly larger than the former effect in this case. Anyway, these effects are quite small relative to the others we are concerned. . We can see that the parallax effect can be measured in $`75\%`$ (from the HST) and $`60\%`$ (from the VLT) of EAGLE events if the lenses are stars in the thick disc.

The fractions for the thin disc are $`10\%`$ larger than that for the thick disc, though the contribution of these components is small because the optical depth is about $`25\%`$ relative to that of the thick disc (Gould 1994a; Gould, Miralda-Escude & Bahcall 1994). $`M_\mathrm{l}`$ might be between $`0.1`$ and $`0.01`$ from comparing the event durations with the observed value $`t_\mathrm{E}40`$ days. Then, the parallax effect can also be measured in $`75\%`$ (from the HST) and $`60\%`$ (from the VLT) of EAGLE events for the thin disc events. In Table 3, we also show that fractions in the case of $`\delta =367.5^{}`$ and $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_{\mathrm{thick},\mathrm{thin}}=50`$ $`M_{}`$ pc-2 from the VLT. In this case the fractions are $`30\%`$ smaller than that in the case of $`\delta =45^{}`$.

For halo events, we adopt the mass function as a delta function $`\delta (M)`$, a Gaussian $`G(M)`$ and a log-normal Gaussian $`G(logM)`$ distributions because the lens mass function is not well known. For $`\delta (M)`$ we adopt $`M=0.1`$ and $`0.5M_{}`$. For $`G(M)`$ and $`G(logM)`$ we take the mean of the mass $`M=0.1`$ and 0.5 $`M_{}`$. The variance is $`0.4M_{}`$ for the $`G(M)`$ and $`\mathrm{log}(0.4M_{}/M)`$ for $`G(logM)`$. Of course the mass function is zero for negative $`M`$ in $`G(M)`$. The typical transverse velocity is $`v_\mathrm{t}=190`$ or $`220`$ km s-1. The estimated fractions in the case of $`V<25`$ mag are shown in Table 4. The optical depth is $`4.8\times 10^7`$ if $`f=1`$. From Table 4, we can see that the fraction of parallax-measurable events out of all EAGLE events is $`20\%`$ (from the HST) and $`10\%`$ (from the VLT).

The fraction of parallax-measurable events depends on the lens location. Then we can also statistically discriminate whether the lenses are in the thick disc or halo, by using the parallax-measurable EAGLE event rate.

## 7 Discussion and Conclusion

We have seen that the EAGLE event rate is as high as that for normal events even for disc events towards the LMC. Since the period in which sources are visible ($`V<21`$) is usually short (1 day $``$ 40 days), the detection efficiency heavily depends on the observational frequency. The observational programs currently undertaken by most groups are not adequate. Hourly monitoring with a 1-m class dedicated telescope and the real-time detection of EAGLE events by the DIA are required to issue alerts with a high detection efficiency. However, for the events in which the source star is $`V>25`$ this period is less than 2 days, so it is difficult to detect. Thus we estimated $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_\mathrm{E}/\mathrm{\Gamma }_\mathrm{N}`$ and $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_\mathrm{P}/\mathrm{\Gamma }_\mathrm{E}`$ in the case that the source star is $`V<25`$. These are decreased but still sufficiently high. Of course, the larger alert telescopes make it easier and faster to issue the alerts.

Estimating the parallax-measurable event rate, we advocate follow-up observations with a space telescope such as the HST and an 8-m class ground-based telescope such as the VLT. We have found that EAGLE events enlarge the opportunity of parallax measurements by $`59`$ (from the HST) and $`610`$ (from the VLT) times for disc events, and by $`8`$ (from the HST) and $`46`$ (from the VLT) times for halo events relative to that in normal microlensing events. We have also found we can measure the parallax effect in $`75\%`$ (from the HST) and $`60\%`$ (from the VLT) of EAGLE events if the lenses are in the thick or thin disc, and in $`20\%`$ (from the HST) and $`10\%`$ (from the VLT) if the lenses are in the halo. Since $`\stackrel{~}{v}`$ for halo objects are $`58`$ times larger than that for disc stars, we can determine whether the lens objects are in the halo or discs for each event. We can also statistically constrain the lens locations by using the parallax-measurable EAGLE event rate.

In follow-up observations from the HST, in this paper we assumed that the observations start just after the peak as the most conservative case. Of course, an observation around the peak is better than that just after the peak. However predicting $`t_0`$ is not so easy for very faint source events. Extensive follow-up observations from small ground-based telescopes around the world are needed to predict $`t_0`$ and inform to the HST. Furthermore a flexible operating program of the HST for the alerts are required. If the alert telescope is at a latitude $`30^{}`$, the alert can be issued for half of the year (Southern Summer), while at a latitude $`44^{}`$ (such as New Zealand) it can be done all year round. The total operation time of the HST would be several days per year.

From the VLT, we assumed $`\delta =45^{}`$. However for the events with faint source ($`V>24`$) the time until $`t_0`$ is short, and the beginning of the follow-up would tend to be delayed. A delay of $`1`$ day reduces the possibility of measuring the parallax by $`30\%`$ as shown in § 6.2. This observation can be done for only half of the year (Southern Summer).

The true source flux $`f_0`$ is needed to measure the precise value of $`\stackrel{~}{v}`$ in the light curve fitting. Then follow-up observations by a high resolution telescope such as the HST are needed to get an accurate $`f_0`$ after the event.

In short, a practical observation strategy would be to observe hourly with a 1-m class telescope and perform real-time analysis with DIA to issue alerts to world observatories and the HST or the VLT for follow-up observations. Then after the events $`f_0`$ should be measured by the HST.

To demonstrate this specifically we estimate the number of expected parallax-measurable events for the two cases that these are mainly halo events or disc events. In both cases, the thin disc events are included. For the typical parameters $`\alpha _\mathrm{d}=2.35`$, $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_{\mathrm{thin}}=\mathrm{\Sigma }_{\mathrm{thick}}=50M_{}`$pc-2, $`V_{\mathrm{th}}=20`$, a detection efficiency of 50% and source stars of $`V<25`$, one can expect to find $``$13 EAGLE events from 3-year observations of 11 square degrees of the LMC central region (as the MACHO collaboration does). In the case of follow-up from the VLT, the expected number would be half. In these 13 EAGLE events, $`2`$ events $`(15\%)`$ are due to the stars in the thin disc and a further $`11`$ events are due to MACHOs or the dark stars in the thick disc. In considering these 11 events, reasonable parameters are $`M=0.1`$ or $`0.5M_{}`$ except $`M=0.1M_{}`$ in the case of the $`\delta `$-function for halo events, and $`M_\mathrm{l}=0.01M_{}`$ for disc events, to be consistent with $`t_E`$40 days (Alcock et al. 2000b). In this case, we will be able to measure $`\stackrel{~}{v}`$ in $`10`$ (from the HST) or $`4`$ (from the VLT) events for disc events, $`4`$ (from the HST) or $`1`$ (from the VLT) event for halo events, which include thin disc events. We can constrain lens locations strongly based on the 3-year statistics of these observations.

In conclusion, one could statistically discriminate whether the typical lens locations are in a thick disc or not, using parallax measurements even with $`R_{}`$ scale baseline. One could also distinguish whether the lenses are MACHOs or stars in the LMC itself through finite source size effects measurements in EAGLE events (Sumi & Honma 2000). Therefore one could identify lens objects as halo MACHOs, dark stars in the Galactic thick disc, or stars in the LMC through these observations.

A real-time alert system with DIA, has been introduced by the MOA collaboration222see http://www.phys.canterbury.ac.nz/~physib/alert/alert.html from 2000 and by the OGLE collaboration333see http://www.astrouw.edu.pl/~ogle/ogle3/ews/ews.html from 2002.

## Acknowledgments

We are grateful to Y. Muraki for his supervision, and also to P. Yock and I. Bond for helpful comments. We would like to thank K. Sahu, B. Paczyński, L. Eyer and J. Tan for fruitful comments. We also acknowledge helpful discussions and continuous encouragement to Y. Sofue, S.M. Miyama, N. Sugiyama, and R. Nishi. T.S. acknowledge the financial support from the Nishina Memorial Foundation. We are also thankful to the referee for suggestive comments.