text:
# Using Cepheids to determine the galactic abundance gradient. III.First results for the outer disc Based on spectra collected at ESO - La Silla, Chile Table A1 (Appendix) is only available in electronic form at the CDS via anonymous ftp to cdsarc.u-strasbg.fr (130.79.128.5) or via http://cdsweb.u-strasbg.fr/cgi-bin/qcat?J/A+A/(vol)/(page)

## 1 Introduction

As shown in our previous papers (Andrievsky et al. andret02a (2002) – Paper I, andret02b (2002) – Paper II) the radial abundance distribution within the region of galactocentric distances from 4 to 10 kpc is best described by two distinct zones. One of them (inner: 4.0 kpc $`<`$R$`{}_{\mathrm{G}}{}^{}<6.5`$ kpc) is characterized by a rather steep gradient, while in the mid part of galactic disc (6.5 kpc $`<`$R$`{}_{\mathrm{G}}{}^{}<10.0`$ kpc), the distribution is essentially flat (e.g. for iron the gradient is d\[Fe/H\]/dR$`{}_{\mathrm{G}}{}^{}0.03`$ dex/kpc).

As discussed in Paper I and Paper II, such a bimodal character in the distribution may result from the combined effect of the radial gas flow in the disc and the radial distribution of the star formation rate. We note here that there are conflicting models of the galactic structure, and that possibly the metallicity gradients can help to decide which are the more likely ones. According to Sevenster (1999a , 1999b ) and others (see references in Paper I) the bar extends its influence to a co-rotation radius at about 4–6 kpc. In contrast, according to Amaral & Lépine (amle97 (1997)) and others, the spiral arms extend from the Inner Lindblad Resonance which is at about 2.5 kpc, to the Outer Lindblad Resonance, at about 12 kpc, and the co-rotation of the spiral pattern is close to the solar galactic orbit. In the vicinity of a bar we expect to see elongated orbits of stars, and consequently, a small metallicity gradient. On the other hand, according to Lépine, Mishurov & Dedikov (lmd01 (2001)) an interaction between the gas and spiral waves in the disc forces the gas to flow in opposite directions inside and outside the Galactic co-rotation annulus. This mechanism produces a cleaning effect in the middle part of the disc and consequently a flattening of the metallicity distribution. At the same time, a decreased star formation rate in the vicinity of the galactic co-rotation, where the relative velocity of the spiral arms and of the gas passing through these arms is small, should also result in some decrease in the abundances.

As the next step of this study we have begun to investigate the radial abundance distribution in the outer disc. The region of primary interest is at a galactocentric radius R$`{}_{\mathrm{G}}{}^{}10`$ kpc, where according to Twarog et al. (twaet97 (1997)) there exists a discontinuity in the metallicity distribution. Such a discontinuity can be suspected from earlier works of Janes (jan79 (1979)), Panagia & Tosi (pantos81 (1981)), and Friel (fri95 (1995)). However, Twarog et al. (twaet97 (1997)) were the first to clearly stress this result. Twarog et al. used photometic metallicities (interpreted to imply \[Fe/H\]) for a large sample of open clusters, and they found that galactic disc breaks into two distinct zones. Between R$`{}_{\mathrm{G}}{}^{}6.510.0`$ kpc they found a mean iron abundance $`<`$\[Fe/H\]$`>`$ of $`0`$ (i.e., the slope is very small, if present). Beyond R$`{}_{\mathrm{G}}{}^{}10.0`$ kpc the mean $`<`$\[Fe/H\]$`>`$ is $`0.3`$. This implies a sharp discontinuity at R$`{}_{\mathrm{G}}{}^{}10`$ kpc.

Recently, Caputo et al. (capet01 (2001)) reported a similar result. Those authors calibrated BVI data for a large sample of galactic Cepheids (galactocentric distances from 6 to 19 kpc) as a function of metallicity using non-linear pulsation models. Their results (although not very reliable on a per star basis) suggest that the derived metallicity distribution in the galactic disc can be represented either by a single gradient of $`0.05`$ dex kpc-1, or by a two-zone distribution with a slope of $`0.01\pm 0.05`$ dex kpc-1 within 10 kpc and $`0.02\pm 0.02`$ dex kpc-1 in the outer region of the galactic disc. In other words, within each region the metallicity gradient is weak to non-existent, while between these regions a significant change of the metallicity/gradient does occur.

These results require an independent check, as well as further specification of the quantitative characteristics of the radial abundance distribution in the outer part of the galactic disc. With this aim we have organized a separate study of distant Cepheids covering the span of distances from 10 to 12 kpc. A short description of the observational material is given in the next section.

## 2 Observations

Observations were carried out between 29 November and 2 December of 2001 with the 1.52-m telescope at La Silla (ESO, Chile). The echelle spectrograph FEROS equipped with a 2048x4096 CCD was used. The resolving power was 48000. The maximum exposure duration was 60 min. All the spectra have a S/N ratio of about 100. Only for EE Mon is the S/N lower ($`50`$ or less). Table 1 contains some information about our program Cepheids. The columns give the star name, the period P (days), the V magnitude, the exposure times (s), JD, phase, and derived quantities, such as the effective temperature, gravity and microturbulent velocity (see next section).

## 3 Atmosphere parameters, abundances and distances

In Paper I the pertinent details concerning the determination of atmospheric parameters and elemental abundances can be found along with a description of our method of estimating the galactocentric distances. The same methods were used in Paper II and here.

To estimate the heliocentric distances of program Cepheids we used the ”absolute magnitude - pulsational period” relation of Gieren, Fouqué & Gómez (gfg98 (1998)). E(B-V), $`<`$B-V$`>`$, mean visual magnitudes and pulsational periods are from Fernie et al. (feret95 (1995)), see Table 4. We use for the interstellar absorption Av an expression from Laney & Stobie (ls93 (1993)).

For s-Cepheids (DCEPS type) the observed periods are those of the first overtone (see, e.g. Christensen-Dalsgaard & Petersen chdp95 (1995)). Therefore, following Paper I and Paper II for these stars the corresponding periods of the unexcited fundamental mode were found using the ratio P1/P$`{}_{0}{}^{}0.72`$, and these periods were then used to estimate the absolute magnitudes.

In Tables 1–4 we list the adopted atmospheric parameters of our program stars, derived elemental abundances and distance estimates, together with other (hopefully) useful data. Note that the abundances derived from the lines of different ions are given in the Appendix (Table A1) along with statistical information about the abundances. The abundances of some elements (e.g. N, Sr, Ru, Pr) listed in the Appendix were not used in the present gradient consideration, since the corresponding abundances of these elements were derived only for a minority of the program stars from Paper I and Paper II.

## 4 Radial abundance distributions: from inner to outer disc

Using the results presented in Tables 2–4 one can construct the radial abundance distribution in the outer disc. To make the picture on galactic abundance gradients as complete as possible, we plotted data from the present paper together with those from Paper I and Paper II (for the sake of clarity the error bars are shown only for the new sample). Figs. 1–5 display the derived dependencies between the abundances of 25 chemical elements and galactocentric distances. As the iron abundances are the most reliable we will concentrate our discussion on the iron gradient d\[Fe/H\]/dRG.

## 5 Discussion

### 5.1 Iron abundance gradient

The specific aim of this paper is to extend the current work to greater distances towards the galactic anticenter, and to search for possible irregularities in the abundance distributions. Distances can be separated into three zones: The inner part of the galactic disk (gradient d\[Fe/H\]/dR$`{}_{\mathrm{G}}{}^{}0.13\pm 0.03`$ dex kpc-1), the mid part of the disk (gradient $`0.02\pm 0.01`$ dex kpc-1), and a piece of outer disc. For the latter we derive a gradient $`0.06\pm 0.01`$ dex kpc-1 and a mean \[Fe/H\] $`0.19\pm 0.08`$ dex. The gradient for each zone was derived from a least-squares fit using the weighted data (for the weights assigned to the stars of the inner and mid parts of the disc see Paper I and Paper II). Each star of the present sample was assigned unit weight (W = 1). Two stars (TV Cam and YZ Aur) from the outer zone were excluded from the present determination. For those Cepheids we have analyzed only photographic spectra (see Paper I), therefore we consider the abundance results (only iron) for TV Cam and YZ Aur as being much less reliable than for other stars where we have the CCD spectra. We also excluded from the statistics the very distant Cepheid EE Mon, and the anomalous Cepheid TZ Mon (about the latter see below). The former will be included in the statistics consideration after we sample the region of galactocentric distances from 12 kpc to 15 kpc (next papers of this series).

The transition zone at 10 kpc can be easily identified in Fig. 1. After this point the metallicity drops by approximately 0.2 dex. All the stars in the bin beyond 10 kpc are iron-deficient. The same result is seen in Fig.3ab of Twarog et al. (twaet97 (1997)) which shows their open cluster metallicity values as a function of galactocentric radius. It should be noted that the sample of open clusters used by Twarog et al. consists of the clusters with ages spanning from 1 to 5 Gyr. Thus, the youngest clusters used for the gradient study are approximately 10 times older than Cepheids. By comparing the iron abundance gradient from Cepheids with that from open clusters one would, in principle, estimate how the abundance gradient evolved with time. Nevertheless, in practice it is difficult to realize, because any conclusion will suffer from the rather high uncertainty of the open cluster data. The only we can state confidently is that the discontinuity of the metallicity distribution has really survived over several Gyrs, until now.

Using a linear fit to the \[Fe/H\] data over the entire baseline (4–12 kpc) produces a gradient of $`0.06`$ dex kpc-1 which is surprisingly close to the canonical literature value of $`0.06/0.07`$ dex kpc-1 (see Papers I and II and references therein).

### 5.2 Radial distribution of other species

In this paper we will not discuss in detail the radial distributions of the elements other than iron. This will be done in a future paper using the whole observed baseline 4–15 kpc after the region of galactocentric distances between 12 and 15 kpc is well sampled.

As is well known, the carbon abundance is altered during the Cepheid evolution, specifically as a result of the first dredge-up. Therefore we do not attach a great significance to the radial distribution obtained for this element. Nevertheless, interestingly enough, the \[C/H\]–RG dependence is rather clear. Two remarkable features inherent to carbon abundance distribution should be stressed. First, the extremely low carbon content in FN Aql (see Paper I and Fig. 2, R$`{}_{\mathrm{G}}{}^{}6.9`$ kpc), and second, the well expressed ”dip” in carbon abundance at galactocentric distances near 10 kpc. The presence of a coherent behavior in carbon can be interpreted as the original carbon abundances show a similar gradient, and as the mixing event at the first dredge-up modifies all of the abundances by similar amounts; i.e., that the mixing process has similar efficiency (depth) for all stars in this mass range.

We believe that rather large scatter in the radial distribution of oxygen abundance at distances 10–12 kpc is probably caused by some unreliability in oxygen abundance derived for distant Cepheids. This scatter probably does not reflect the real inhomogeneity of oxygen abundance in the interstellar media of the outer disc. The same can be said about elements such as Sc, Cu, Zn (only a few spectral lines for each of these elements including O were analyzed). Those elements whose abundances were based on the analysis of a significant number of lines (e.g. Si, Ti, V, Ni), show rather tight distributions.

The step distribution and apparent discontinuity (similar to iron) is also seen for Si, Ti, Mn, Co, Ni, Zr and Nd.

### 5.3 A possible explanation for the observed features

If we consider the ensemble of our results, paying special attention to the elements for which the data present smaller scatter because they present a large number of lines in the spectra, like Si, Ti, V, Ni, in addition to Fe and C, it is very clear that the metallicity distribution is flat between about 6 and 10 kpc, and that there is a discontinuity of about $`0.2`$ dex for R$`{}_{\mathrm{G}}{}^{}>10`$ kpc, and perhaps a minimum at about 10.5–11.0 kpc which can be traced from some distributions (let us recall that we adopt R$`{}_{}{}^{}=7.9`$ kpc). This is a new result, although the discontinuity at about 10 kpc was already observed by Twarog et al. (twaet97 (1997)), in a sample of open clusters. An attractive explanation for the minimum at 10.5 kpc (if it truly exists) is the minimum of star formation rate that is expected at co-rotation, as mentioned in the Introduction.

Recently Mishurov et al. (mishet02 (2002)) produced a detailed model of chemical evolution of the galactic disc, taking into account the effect of co-rotation, to explain our data presented in Papers I and II. The new data presented in this paper, suggest that the model of Mishurov et al. (mishet02 (2002)) is basically correct, but that the co-rotation radius should be slightly shifted to about 10.5 kpc. The discontinuity in the metallicity distribution at 10 kpc is possibly explained by the gap in the gas density distribution that is associated with co-rotation (see Lépine, Mishurov & Dedikov lmd01 (2001)). If we divide the Galactic disc in a large number of concentric rings, the gas from neighbouring rings tends to mix due to supernova explosions, stellar winds, cloud collisions, etc., that do not respect the frontiers between concentric rings. This mixing is equivalent to a diffusion term, and tends to smooth out metallicity gradients in the gas (and therefore, in recently formed stars). However, the gas density gap associated with co-rotation, which is observed in the 21 cm hydrogen line as discussed by Lépine, Mishurov & Dedikov (lmd01 (2001)) is possibly a barrier that avoids contact between the gas at R$`{}_{\mathrm{G}}{}^{}>`$ Rc and R$`{}_{\mathrm{G}}{}^{}<`$ Rc and allows the existence of two distinct zones.

### 5.4 Some notes about TZ Mon

This star differs from other Cepheids by its very low Vt value (1.5 km s-1, see Table 1) which is not appropriate for supergiants. Nevertheless, only by using this small value can one avoid any dependence between iron abundance from individual iron lines and their equivalent widths. With the adopted microturbulent velocity this distant Cepheid shows solar-like abundances for the great majority of elements. For Mn we detected a strong overabundance. Another interesting feature, which is seen in the TZ Mon spectrum, is the 6707 Å Li I line. Normally this line is not present in supergiant spectra. The equivalent width of W=10 mÅ results in an absolute lithium abundance for TZ Mon of about 0.84. This is consistent with Li abundances previously determined for some non-variable G/K supergiants by Luck (luck77 (1977)).

###### Acknowledgements.

This work was supported in part by a grant to SMA from FAPESP São Paulo (visiting professor fellowship No. 2000/06587-3), and ESO Garching (visitor programme). SMA is very grateful to Drs. B Barbuy, M. Spite, F. Spite and S. D’Odorico for their personal assistance. He would like also to thank the staff of ESO La Silla for the provision of excellent conditions during his observations. The authors are indebted to the referee, Dr. B.W. Carney, for important comments which allowed us to improve the fist version of this paper.

Appendix Table A1 Elemental abundances in program Cepheids
CS Ori, P=3.88939 AE Tau 3.89645 V504 Mon (s) 3.907 AA Mon 3.93816  Ion \[M/H\] $`\sigma `$ N (M/H) \[M/H\] $`\sigma `$ N (M/H) \[M/H\] $`\sigma `$ N (M/H) \[M/H\] $`\sigma `$ N (M/H)  C I –0.58 0.18 5 7.97 –0.48 0.08 5 8.07 –0.53 0.12 9 8.02 –0.49 0.13 6 8.06  N I –0.12 0.10 8 7.85 0.07 0.08 6 8.04 0.14 0.05 7 8.11 0.35 0.06 5 8.32  O I –0.61  1 8.26 –0.17 0.23 2 8.70 –0.35  1 8.52 –0.19 0.07 2 8.68  Na I 0.05 0.01 3 6.38 –0.10 0.01 2 6.23 –0.08 0.10 4 6.25 0.04 0.13 2 6.37  Mg I –0.40  1 7.18 –0.36 0.18 2 7.22 –0.45  1 7.13 –0.22 0.12 2 7.36  Al I –0.31 0.33 2 6.16 –0.30 0.11 6 6.17 –0.13  1 6.34 –0.14  1 6.33  Si I –0.16 0.11 22 7.39 –0.18 0.10 23 7.37 –0.19 0.13 13 7.36 –0.15 0.18 6 7.40  Si II –0.09  1 7.46 –0.19  1 7.36 0.10  1 7.65 0.06  1 7.61  S I –0.32 0.16 5 6.89 –0.33 0.15 3 6.88 –0.23 0.22 4 6.98 –0.12 0.20 5 7.09  Ca I –0.20 0.10 9 6.16 –0.25 0.08 9 6.11 –0.21 0.12 11 6.15 –0.26 0.15 8 6.10  Sc I 0.38  1 3.55 0.20  1 3.37          Sc II –0.27 0.16 3 2.90 –0.15 0.17 4 3.02 –0.33 0.18 5 2.84 –0.21 0.15 6 2.96  Ti I –0.20 0.05 4 4.82 –0.07 0.14 9 4.95 –0.22 0.07 3 4.80 –0.21 0.10 3 4.81  Ti II –0.33  1 4.69 –0.02  1 5.00 –0.35 0.12 3 4.67 –0.25 0.05 3 4.77  V I     –0.16 0.20 5 3.84 –0.11  1 3.89 0.18 0.01 2 4.18  V II     –0.32 0.05 2 3.68     –0.29  1 3.71  Cr I –0.03  1 5.64 –0.13 0.14 3 5.54     –0.23  1 5.44  Cr II –0.31 0.13 3 5.36 –0.10 0.07 3 5.57 –0.30 0.12 9 5.37 –0.26 0.13 7 5.41  Mn I –0.43 0.04 3 4.96 –0.41 0.10 5 4.98 –0.38 0.13 2 5.01 –0.29 0.05 2 5.10  Fe I –0.26 0.11 80 7.24 –0.19 0.10 113 7.31 –0.31 0.10 57 7.19 –0.21 0.10 48 7.29  Fe II –0.25 0.07 18 7.25 –0.17 0.09 22 7.33 –0.30 0.11 29 7.20 –0.22 0.09 21 7.28  Co I     –0.45  1 4.47          Ni I –0.25 0.17 24 6.00 –0.22 0.07 26 6.03 –0.36 0.10 11 5.89 –0.30 0.11 8 5.95  Cu I 0.19  1 4.40 –0.14  1 4.07 0.20  1 4.41 0.29  1 4.50  Y II –0.09 0.13 3 2.15 0.08 0.04 3 2.32 –0.17 0.11 4 2.07 0.07 0.10 5 2.31  Zr II     –0.18  1 2.41 –0.24  1 2.36      La II 0.21  1 1.43 0.32  1 1.54          Ce II 0.07  1 1.62 –0.27 0.19 2 1.28 –0.26 0.20 3 1.28 0.03 0.17 2 1.58  Pr II         –0.39  1 0.32      Nd II –0.17  1 1.33 –0.08 0.15 3 1.42 –0.30 0.14 3 1.20 –0.11 0.06 3 1.39  Eu II –0.03  1 0.48 0.11 0.01 2 0.62 –0.15  1 0.36 –0.32  1 0.19   EK Mon 3.95794 V495 Mon 4.09658 V508 Mon 4.133608 VW Pup 4.28537  Ion \[M/H\] $`\sigma `$ N (M/H) \[M/H\] $`\sigma `$ N (M/H) \[M/H\] $`\sigma `$ N (M/H) \[M/H\] $`\sigma `$ N (M/H)  C I –0.42 0.10 6 8.13 –0.77 0.08 3 7.78 –0.77 0.08 5 7.78 –0.48 0.14 4 8.07  N I 0.26 0.07 5 8.23 –0.12  1 7.85 0.07 0.08 6 8.04 –0.12  1 7.85  O I –0.28  1 8.59 –0.09 0.04 2 8.78 –0.54  1 8.33 0.19  1 9.06  Na I 0.04 0.01 2 6.37 –0.00 0.06 3 6.33 –0.01 0.12 2 6.32 0.02 0.00 2 6.35  Mg I –0.18  1 7.40 –0.28  1 7.30 –0.28  1 7.30 –0.31  1 7.27  Al I –0.04 0.00 2 6.43 –0.25 0.23 4 6.22 –0.15 0.19 4 6.32 –0.21 0.02 2 6.26  Si I –0.05 0.07 10 7.50 –0.18 0.07 14 7.37 –0.20 0.07 17 7.35 –0.17 0.07 10 7.38  Si I         –0.05 0.13 2 7.50 –0.12 0.19 2 7.43  S I –0.15 0.03 3 7.06 –0.07  1 7.14 –0.19 0.29 4 7.02 –0.29 0.20 2 6.92  Ca I –0.10 0.09 5 6.26 –0.29 0.16 6 6.07 –0.22 0.07 4 6.14 –0.23 0.06 5 6.13  Sc I 0.49  1 3.66     0.08  1 3.25      Sc II –0.19 0.19 4 2.98 –0.34 0.11 5 2.83 –0.35 0.12 2 2.82 –0.19 0.12 3 2.98  Ti I –0.20  1 4.82 –0.29 0.10 5 4.73 –0.10 0.12 7 4.92 –0.26  1 4.76  Ti II –0.17 0.08 3 4.85 –0.30 0.11 2 4.72 –0.34  1 4.68 –0.31  1 4.71  V I –0.07  1 3.93 –0.22 0.20 3 3.78 –0.20 0.13 7 3.80 –0.35 0.08 2 3.65  V II –0.14  1 3.86 –0.47  1 3.53 –0.40  1 3.60 –0.28 0.09 2 3.72  Cr I     –0.21  1 5.46 –0.22  1 5.45 –0.04 0.29 2 5.63  Cr II –0.15 0.07 7 5.52 –0.34 0.14 7 5.33 –0.22 0.08 5 5.45 –0.09 0.20 3 5.58  Mn I –0.19 0.08 3 5.20 –0.39 0.10 6 5.00 –0.41 0.06 4 4.98 –0.37 0.08 4 5.02  Fe I –0.09 0.09 71 7.41 –0.26 0.11 68 7.24 –0.25 0.07 94 7.25 –0.19 0.09 73 7.31  Fe II –0.12 0.08 21 7.38 –0.28 0.12 21 7.22 –0.23 0.09 22 7.27 –0.20 0.08 12 7.30  Co I –0.06  1 4.86 –0.25 0.07 3 4.67 –0.35 0.00 2 4.57 –0.26 0.06 4 4.66  Ni I –0.20 0.09 18 6.05 –0.36 0.08 18 5.89 –0.35 0.07 22 5.90 –0.17 0.12 17 6.08  Cu I –0.96  1 3.25 –0.31 0.04 2 3.90 –0.30  1 3.91 –0.64 0.39 2 3.57  Zn I         0.11  1 4.71      Y II –0.07 0.08 6 2.17 –0.10 0.09 6 2.14 –0.17 0.09 4 2.07 –0.09 0.12 5 2.15  Zr II 0.05  1 2.65 –0.44  1 2.16 –0.16  1 2.44      La II     0.05  1 1.27 0.06  1 1.28 0.19  1 1.41  Ce II –0.22 0.25 4 1.33 0.04 0.20 4 1.59 –0.17 0.13 2 1.38 0.08 0.19 5 1.63  Pr II     –0.20  1 0.51 –0.54  1 0.17 –0.38  1 0.33  Nd II 0.06 0.15 3 1.56 –0.14 0.11 9 1.36 –0.24 0.12 6 1.26 –0.06 0.24 6 1.44  Eu II 0.31  1 0.82 –0.17 0.00 2 0.34 –0.27 0.14 2 0.24 –0.08  1 0.43  Gd II         –0.14  1 0.98

* N– is the number of the line used in analysis.
* \[M/H\] and (M/H) – the relative-to-solar and absolute abundances respectively.

Table A1 (continued)
EE Mon 4.80896 XX Mon 5.45647 WW Pup 5.51672 TZ Mon 7.42818  Ion \[M/H\] $`\sigma `$ N (M/H) \[M/H\] $`\sigma `$ N (M/H) \[M/H\] $`\sigma `$ N (M/H) \[M/H\] $`\sigma `$ N (M/H)  Li I             –0.32:  1 0.84  C I –0.48 0.13 5 8.07 –0.52 0.19 2 8.03 –0.64 0.16 5 7.91 –0.53 0.06 3 8.02  N I 0.14 0.05 2 8.11 0.15 0.09 2 8.12 –0.16  1 7.81 0.26  1 8.23  O I     0.06 0.04 3 8.93     0.28 0.08 4 9.15  Na I –0.20 0.18 4 6.13 0.02 0.04 2 6.35 0.01 0.11 2 6.34 0.15 0.09 3 6.48  Mg I –0.60  1 6.98     –0.33  1 7.25 –0.05 0.13 2 7.53  Al I     0.13  1 6.60 –0.12 0.05 2 6.35 0.05 0.12 5 6.52  Si I –0.36 0.14 11 7.19 –0.18 0.05 7 7.37 –0.13 0.10 14 7.42 0.01 0.09 25 7.56  Si II –0.23  1 7.32     –0.18 0.08 2 7.38 –0.11  1 7.44  S I –0.56 0.37 3 6.65 –0.21 0.24 3 7.00 –0.20 0.23 4 7.01 0.20 0.16 4 7.41  Ca I –0.50 0.15 12 5.86 –0.18 0.16 6 6.18 –0.22 0.07 4 6.14 0.06 0.15 9 6.42  Sc I 0.07  1 3.24 0.32  1 3.49 0.21  1 3.38 –0.23 0.13 4 2.94  Sc II –0.50 0.21 6 2.67 –0.31 0.06 2 2.86 –0.48 0.09 3 2.69 –0.29 0.22 6 2.88  Ti I –0.17 0.41 8 4.85 –0.22 0.10 5 4.80 –0.24 0.04 4 4.78 –0.08 0.11 28 4.94  Ti II –0.45 0.20 4 4.57 –0.30  1 4.72 –0.30  1 4.72 –0.22  1 4.80  V I     –0.06 0.22 4 3.94 –0.19 0.15 4 3.81 –0.08 0.11 19 3.92  V II –0.41 0.32 2 3.59         –0.12  1 3.88  Cr I –0.02 0.64 6 5.65 –0.39  1 5.28 –0.14 0.01 2 5.53 –0.02 0.15 10 5.65  Cr II –0.55 0.09 10 5.12 –0.08 0.21 5 5.59 –0.23 0.16 5 5.44 –0.18 0.17 2 5.49  Mn I –0.66 0.19 2 4.73 –0.29 0.04 4 5.10 –0.31 0.08 2 5.08 0.41 0.07 6 5.80  Fe I –0.51 0.15 77 6.99 –0.18 0.11 52 7.32 –0.17 0.11 56 7.33 –0.03 0.15 178 7.47  Fe II –0.52 0.17 29 6.98 –0.17 0.10 15 7.33 –0.19 0.12 19 7.31 –0.04 0.18 22 7.46  Co I     –0.27 0.28 2 4.65     –0.16 0.06 12 4.76  Ni I –0.58 0.15 13 5.67 –0.27 0.08 13 5.98 –0.21 0.09 20 6.04 –0.09 0.10 55 6.16  Cu I     –0.22  1 3.99 –0.34 0.10 2 3.87 0.17  1 4.38  Zn I         –0.01  1 4.59 0.26  1 4.86  Sr I             –0.10  1 2.80  Y I         0.44  1 2.68 –0.47  1 1.77  Y II –0.40 0.20 4 1.84 –0.00 0.10 5 2.24 –0.02 0.09 6 2.22 –0.08 0.05 2 2.16  Zr II     –0.25  1 2.35     –0.22  1 2.38  Ru I             –0.50  1 1.34  Ba II –0.51  1 1.62         0.50  1 2.63  La II     0.06  1 1.28 0.15  1 1.37 0.04  1 1.26  Ce II –0.27 0.51 2 1.28 –0.05 0.25 4 1.50 –0.00 0.16 3 1.55 –0.26 0.24 3 1.29  Pr II     –0.10 0.06 2 0.61 –0.35  1 0.36      Nd II –0.23 0.30 2 1.27 0.01 0.24 6 1.51 –0.04 0.18 8 1.46 –0.25 0.02 2 1.25  Eu II     0.04  1 0.55 –0.09 0.05 2 0.42 –0.01  1 0.50   AC Mon 8.01425 TX Mon 8.70173 HW Pup 13.454 AD Pup 13.5940  Ion \[M/H\] $`\sigma `$ N (M/H) \[M/H\] $`\sigma `$ N (M/H) \[M/H\] $`\sigma `$ N (M/H) \[M/H\] $`\sigma `$ N (M/H)  Li I             0.18:  1 1.34  C I –0.52 0.15 7 8.03 –0.41 0.07 10 8.14 –0.56 0.11 5 7.99 –0.77 0.00 2 7.78  N I 0.23 0.14 5 8.20 0.29 0.10 6 8.26 0.04 0.12 3 8.01 0.49  1 8.45  O I –0.25  1 8.62 –0.16 0.31 2 8.71 –0.29  1 8.58      Na I 0.05 0.18 2 6.38 –0.08 0.10 3 6.25 –0.20  1 6.13 0.06 0.18 2 6.39  Mg I     –0.26 0.20 2 7.32 –0.52  1 7.06      Al I –0.36 0.15 2 6.11 –0.07 0.21 4 6.40 –0.16  1 6.31 0.00  1 6.47  Si I –0.08 0.12 10 7.47 –0.10 0.08 27 7.45 –0.20 0.08 11 7.35 –0.19 0.10 9 7.36  Si II     0.06  1 7.61 –0.07  1 7.49 –0.21  1 7.34  S I –0.21 0.19 6 7.00 –0.17 0.25 4 7.04 –0.29 0.30 3 6.92 –0.13 0.23 2 7.08  Ca I –0.13 0.15 7 6.23 –0.24 0.04 6 6.12 –0.27 0.15 6 6.09 –0.17 0.16 3 6.19  Sc I             –0.04 0.15 2 3.13  Sc II –0.21 0.19 3 2.96 –0.16 0.13 3 3.01 –0.30 0.13 3 2.87      Ti I –0.28  1 4.74 –0.16 0.06 3 4.86 –0.22 0.16 2 4.80 –0.20 0.19 5 4.82  Ti II –0.15 0.09 2 4.87 –0.19 0.09 2 4.83 –0.30  1 4.72 –0.31  1 4.71  V I –0.17  1 3.83 –0.28 0.12 2 3.72 –0.09  1 3.91 –0.32 0.16 6 3.68  V II –0.29  1 3.71 –0.27 0.04 2 3.73 –0.45 0.16 2 3.55 –0.35  1 3.65  Cr I –0.54  1 5.13 –0.17 0.06 5 5.50 –0.45  1 5.22 –0.54  1 5.13  Cr II –0.20 0.07 7 5.47 –0.15 0.09 3 5.52 –0.27 0.14 7 5.40 –0.30 0.20 2 5.37  Mn I –0.25 0.14 5 5.14 –0.25 0.06 7 5.14 –0.28 0.08 3 5.11 –0.33 0.21 3 5.06  Fe I –0.22 0.07 57 7.28 –0.14 0.06 118 7.36 –0.30 0.10 53 7.20 –0.24 0.08 46 7.26  Fe II –0.20 0.07 15 7.30 –0.14 0.07 23 7.36 –0.28 0.15 27 7.22 –0.21 0.09 6 7.29  Co I     –0.24 0.08 3 4.68 –0.18  1 4.74 –0.48 0.06 3 4.44  Ni I –0.35 0.06 4 5.90 –0.20 0.07 30 6.05 –0.35 0.10 10 5.90 –0.37 0.07 23 5.88  Cu I –0.80  1 3.41 –0.04 0.05 2 4.17 –0.32 0.14 2 3.89 –0.47  1 3.74  Zn I     0.15  1 4.75          Y II –0.12 0.13 5 2.12 0.06 0.10 5 2.30 –0.13 0.07 6 2.11 –0.11 0.05 3 2.13  Zr II     –0.27  1 2.33     –0.20  1 2.40  La II 0.13  1 1.35 0.23  1 1.45     0.27  1 1.49  Ce II –0.20 0.18 2 1.35 0.10 0.15 3 1.65 –0.13 0.24 5 1.42 –0.14 0.22 3 1.41  Pr II     –0.12  1 0.59 –0.28 0.07 3 0.43 –0.29  1 0.42  Nd II –0.12 0.39 2 1.38 –0.10 0.13 5 1.40 –0.15 0.22 8 1.35 –0.12 0.22 6 1.38  Eu II 0.18 0.11 2 0.69 0.07  1 0.58 –0.11 0.12 2 0.40 –0.06  1 0.45  Gd II     –0.23  1 0.89     –0.03  1 1.09

Table A1 (continued)
BN Pup 13.6731 SV Mon 15.23278 VZ Pup 23.1710  Ion \[M/H\] $`\sigma `$ N (M/H) \[M/H\] $`\sigma `$ N (M/H) \[M/H\] $`\sigma `$ N (M/H)  C I –0.45 0.08 2 8.10 –0.81  1 7.74 –0.83 0.18 5 7.72  N I 0.55 0.08 2 8.52 $`<`$0.22  1 $`<`$8.19 0.02 0.16 7 7.99  O I –0.06 0.04 3 8.81 0.21 0.07 3 9.08 –0.10  1 8.77  Na I 0.09 0.02 2 6.42 0.10  1 6.43 0.00 0.08 2 6.33  Mg I 0.21 0.05 3 7.79 –0.48  1 7.10 –0.15 0.15 4 7.43  Al I 0.04 0.11 4 6.51 –0.04 0.12 6 6.43 –0.15 0.11 2 6.32  Si I –0.01 0.11 21 7.54 –0.02 0.13 23 7.53 –0.11 0.09 13 7.44  Si II 0.08  1 7.63 0.05  1 7.60 0.20  1 7.75  S I 0.19 0.16 4 7.40 0.24 0.24 5 7.45 –0.22 0.21 3 6.99  Ca I 0.04 0.24 6 6.40 –0.13 0.07 2 6.23 –0.12 0.09 7 6.24  Sc I 0.05  1 3.22 –0.07 0.09 2 3.10      Sc II –0.08  1 3.09 –0.07  1 3.10 –0.16 0.20 3 3.01  Ti I –0.05 0.13 13 4.97 –0.11 0.17 17 4.91 –0.23 0.00 2 4.79  Ti II –0.02  1 5.00 0.11  1 5.13 –0.33  1 4.69  V I –0.12 0.10 11 3.88 –0.22 0.08 12 3.78 0.12 0.01 2 4.12  V II –0.24 0.06 3 3.76 –0.09 0.12 3 3.91 –0.26  1 3.74  Cr I 0.07 0.26 4 5.74 –0.06 0.21 6 5.61 –0.45  1 5.22  Cr II     –0.02  1 5.65 –0.12 0.09 5 5.55  Mn I –0.02 0.05 6 5.37 0.03 0.15 4 5.42 –0.28 0.04 5 5.11  Fe I 0.01 0.06 85 7.51 0.00 0.06 115 7.50 –0.16 0.09 58 7.34  Fe II 0.01 0.13 19 7.51 0.02 0.04 12 7.52 –0.15 0.08 15 7.35  Co I –0.23 0.08 8 4.69 –0.24 0.11 8 4.68      Ni I –0.03 0.09 33 6.22 –0.08 0.07 33 6.17 –0.28 0.08 10 5.97  Cu I –0.24  1 3.97 –0.42  1 3.79 0.10  1 4.31  Y I 0.50  1 2.74 0.19  1 2.43      Y II 0.15 0.05 3 2.39 0.16 0.04 2 2.40 –0.06 0.06 4 2.18  Zr II –0.17  1 2.43 0.00  1 2.60      La II 0.30  1 1.52 0.30  1 1.52      Ce II –0.00 0.14 4 1.55 0.08 0.20 3 1.63 –0.11 0.28 3 1.44  Pr II –0.15 0.02 2 0.56     –0.21  1 0.50  Nd II 0.03 0.18 8 1.53 0.16 0.25 3 1.66 0.02 0.22 4 1.52  Eu II 0.07 0.13 2 0.58 0.08 0.07 2 0.59 0.02  1 0.53  Gd II     0.12  1 1.24 0.32  1 1.44


format: text

text:
# Population effects on the red giant clump absolute magnitude: The 𝐾-band.

## 1 Introduction

During the last few years a large body of work has been focused on the use of helium burning red clump (RC) stars as distance indicator; this has been mainly due to the fact that $`Hipparcos`$ parallaxes allows an accurate calibration of the average RC brightness in the solar neighbourhood (as a comparison, $`Hipparcos`$ parallaxes of the closest Cepheid and RR Lyrae stars have much larger errors, and the calibration of their absolute magnitude has provided conflicting results, see e.g. Feast & Catchpole 1997; Luri et al. 1998), and that the RC is easily recognizable in the colour-magnitude-diagram (CMD) of intermediate-old stellar populations.

The determination of the absolute magnitude of the local RC in a given pass-band $`\lambda `$, $`M_{\lambda ,\mathrm{local}}^{\mathrm{RC}}`$, and the apparent magnitude $`m_\lambda ^{\mathrm{RC}}`$ of the RC in a given stellar population is not difficult, since in both the Hipparcos database of nearby stars, and in CMDs covering even a small fraction of a nearby galaxy, one finds several hundreds of clump stars, easily identifiable from their CMD location. As proposed by Stanek & Garnavich (1998), a non-linear least-square fit of the function

$$N(m_\lambda )=a+bm_\lambda +cm_\lambda ^2+d\mathrm{exp}\left[\frac{(m_\lambda ^{\mathrm{RC}}m_\lambda )^2}{2\sigma _{m_\lambda }^2}\right]$$
(1)
to the histogram of stars in the clump region per magnitude bin provides the value of $`m_\lambda ^{\mathrm{RC}}`$ and its associated standard error. By applying this procedure to the Hipparcos database of nearby stars, the RC absolute brightness in the $`I`$-band (Cousins) $`M_I^{\mathrm{RC}}`$ has been determined with accuracy of hundredths of magnitude (Paczyński & Stanek 1998; Stanek, Zaritsky & Harris 1998).

Once the mean apparent magnitude of the RC in a given photometric band, $`m_\lambda ^{\mathrm{RC}}`$, is measured in a nearby galaxy, its absolute distance modulus $`\mu _0=(mM)_0`$ is easily derived by means of

$$\mu _0=m_\lambda ^{\mathrm{RC}}M_{\lambda ,\mathrm{local}}^{\mathrm{RC}}A_{m_\lambda }+\mathrm{\Delta }M_\lambda ^{\mathrm{RC}}.$$
(2)
In this equation, $`A_{m_\lambda }`$ is the interstellar extinction to the RC population of an external galaxy, and $`\mathrm{\Delta }M_\lambda ^{\mathrm{RC}}=M_{\lambda ,\mathrm{local}}^{\mathrm{RC}}M_{\lambda ,\mathrm{galaxy}}^{\mathrm{RC}}`$ is the population effect, i.e. the difference of the mean RC absolute magnitude between the local and external samples of stars.

After early claims (Paczyński & Stanek 1998; Udalski et al. 1998; Stanek et al. 1998) based mainly on the constancy of $`M_I^{\mathrm{RC}}`$ with respect to the colour $`(VI)`$, that the population correction ($`\mathrm{\Delta }M_I^{\mathrm{RC}}`$) is negligible in the $`I`$-band, Cole (1998), Girardi et al. (1998, hereafter Paper I) and Girardi & Salaris (2001, hereafter Paper II) have conclusively demonstrated that this is not the case. The in-depth analysis we presented in Paper II has shown how theoretical stellar evolution models are able to reproduce the morphology and properties of the $`I`$-band RC brightness in Galactic open clusters, of the local $`Hipparcos`$ RC as well as the RC in a sample of external galaxies, when using current estimates of the Star-Formation-History (SFR) and Age-Metallicity-Relation (AMR) of their stellar populations. The models predict a non-negligible dependence of $`M_I^{\mathrm{RC}}`$ on both metallicity and age, so that the population correction $`\mathrm{\Delta }M_I^{\mathrm{RC}}`$ must be taken into account. In particular, the dependence on age is complex and non-monotonic. This implies that accurate RC distances can be determined only if one can estimate SFR and AMR for the stellar population under scrutiny. If there are no determinations of these two key parameters, errors up to $``$0.3 mag in the derived distance modulus are to be accepted.

In the specific case of the Large Magellanic Cloud (LMC) distance, that sets the zero point of the extragalactic distance scale, we obtained a population correction in the $`I`$-band $`\mathrm{\Delta }M_I^{\mathrm{RC}}`$=+0.20. Unfortunately, the evaluation of the RC distance to the LMC is plagued by what possibly are uncertainties in the estimate of the interstellar extinction. Romaniello et al. (2000) and Sakai, Zaritsky and Kennicutt (2000) obtain, respectively, $`I_0^{\mathrm{RC}}=18.12\pm 0.02`$ and $`I_0^{\mathrm{RC}}=18.06\pm 0.02`$ from $`HST`$ data, after deriving the extinction to individual stars from multiband colour fitting using theoretical model atmospheres results; these values, used in conjunction with the appropriate evolutionary correction and $`M_I^{\mathrm{RC}}=0.23\pm `$0.03 for the local RC, provide $`\mu _0=18.55\pm 0.04`$ and $`\mu _0=18.49\pm 0.04`$, respectively. On the other hand Udalski (2000) has obtained $`I_0^{\mathrm{RC}}=17.94\pm 0.05`$, using different photometric data and determining the average stellar reddenings from the $`COBE/DIRBE`$ reddening maps (Schlegel, Finkbeiner & Davis 1998), which gives a much shorter value, $`\mu _0=18.37\pm 0.06`$.

To overcome uncertainties related to the extinction correction, Alves (2000) and Grocholski & Sarajedini (2002) have recently discussed the use of the RC in the $`K`$-band; the main advantage of working in this wavelength range is a very much reduced sensitivity to the extinction ($`A_K0.2A_I`$). Alves (2000) has derived $`M_K^{\mathrm{RC}}=1.61\pm `$0.03 for the local RC stars with $`Hipparcos`$ parallaxes and spectroscopic metallicities, and obtained a distance to the Galactic centre ($`\mu _0=14.58\pm 0.11`$, or $`8.24\pm 0.42`$ Kpc) using the observed RC $`K`$-band magnitude for a sample of Baade’s window RC stars with the same mean metallicity of the local sample; the underlying assumption is that there is no potential age-effect on the $`K`$-band RC level. Grocholski & Sarajedini (2002) have tested the behaviour of $`M_K^{\mathrm{RC}}`$ on a sample of single-age, single-metallicity stellar populations, constituted by 14 Galactic open clusters and 2 globular clusters with independent estimates of reddening and distances, finding a good agreement with the behaviour predicted by the theoretical models by Girardi et al. (2000), which are the same used in Paper I and Paper II. Moreover, Alves et al. (2002) have used simultaneously $`V`$, $`I`$ and $`K`$ photometry of LMC RC stars to determine both the LMC distance and the extinction for the observed RC population. They have demonstrated the need to apply population corrections to the RC absolute brightness determined from the local clump, otherwise a negative extinction is obtained; their final result $`\mu _0=18.506\pm 0.033`$ for the LMC ($`\mu _0=18.493\pm 0.033\pm 0.03`$ random plus systematic error, after correcting for the location of the observed fields with respect to the LMC center, and including an estimate of the probable systematic errors involved) and $`E(BV)=0.089\pm 0.015`$ was obtained making use of evolutionary corrections derived with the techniques and models presented in paper II.

In light of these results we consider important to investigate theoretically the properties of the RC in the $`K`$-band, as well as to assess the simultaneous reliability of the population corrections to the $`V`$-, $`I`$\- and $`K`$-band for a given stellar population.

In Sect. 2 we discuss in detail the properties of the RC in the $`K`$-band and its dependence on age and metallicity, while in Sect. 3 we perform further tests to assess the reliability of the population corrections predicted by theory.

In Sect. 4 we present multiband population corrections for the galaxy systems discussed in Paper II; in addition, we will discuss the technique used by Alves et al. (2002) for their LMC distance determination, and apply it to the case of the Galactic globular cluster 47 Tuc (for which reddening estimates and an accurate empirical main-sequence fitting distance do exist) and to a field of the LMC with independent reddening determinations.

Our final conclusions are presented in Sect. 5.

## 2 The theoretical red clump location in the $`K`$-band

As in Paper I and Paper II we will base the discussion of the model behaviour on the Girardi et al. (2000) set of evolutionary tracks and isochrones. We remark that different models in the literature present systematic luminosity differences for the core helium burning (CHeB) stars that have passed through the helium flash – which are the stars belonging to the observed RC populations – due mainly to the different values of the helium core mass at the flash (see, e.g., Castellani et al. 2000; Salaris, Cassisi & Weiss 2002); however, the variation of their brightness with respect to age and metallicity is much more consistently predicted by theory (Castellani et al. 2000; Salaris et al. 2002). As in Paper II, the main results of this paper will be based on the strictly differential use of the model predictions.

We start our analysis by showing in Figure 1 the location of RC stars at the beginning of the He-burning phase on a magnitude-effective temperature plane, in simple stellar populations (single-age, single-metallicity) of various ages between 1 and 14 Gyr, and two different metallicities111In the course of the paper we will also denote the metallicity of a given stellar population with the spectroscopic notation $`[\mathrm{M}/\mathrm{H}]=\mathrm{log}(\mathrm{M}/\mathrm{H})_{\mathrm{star}}\mathrm{log}(\mathrm{M}/\mathrm{H})_{}`$, where M is the total metal abundance. \[M/H\] is related to $`Z`$ by means of the approximate relation $`[\mathrm{M}/\mathrm{H}]=\mathrm{log}(Z/Z_{})`$, where we assume $`Z_{}=0.019`$. In case of a scaled-solar metal distribution $`[\mathrm{M}/\mathrm{H}]=[\mathrm{Fe}/\mathrm{H}]`$. ($`Z=0.001`$ and a solar $`Z=0.019`$); the behaviour of the bolometric luminosity as well as the $`V`$-, $`I`$\- and $`K`$-band brightness is displayed. One striking feature is readily apparent; while the bolometric, $`V`$ and $`I`$ brightness at fixed age increase for decreasing metallicity, the $`K`$ brightness is either approximately constant or even decreases with decreasing metallicity. The $`V`$ and $`I`$ magnitude follow (even if with different sensitivities) the behaviour of the bolometric magnitude, which is essentially determined by the variation with metallicity of the core mass at the He-ignition; the higher the metallicity, the lower the core mass, the lower the luminosity during the RC phase. However, in case of the $`K`$-band the situation is completely changed, due to the behaviour of $`BC_K`$.

Figure 2 displays the trend of $`BC_K`$ with respect to metallicity and effective temperature, for the RC stars. It turns out that $`BC_K`$ is almost unaffected by Z, but it is strongly sensitive to the value of $`T_{\mathrm{eff}}`$. Lower effective temperatures correspond to higher values of $`BC_K`$; since $`M_K=M_{\mathrm{bol}}BC_K`$, cooler RC stars tend to be brighter. This sensitivity of $`BC_K`$ to $`T_{\mathrm{eff}}`$ is strong enough to reverse the dependence of the stellar brightness on the He-core mass. As for the dependence of the $`K`$ brightness on age, one can deduce from Figure 1 a large effect for high ages and a reduced one for lower ages, especially at high metallicities. This is a straightforward consequence of the $`T_{\mathrm{eff}}`$ location of the models as a function of their age; in fact, for increasing metallicity and decreasing age the scaling with respect to $`T_{\mathrm{eff}}`$ is reduced, thus producing a smaller variation of $`BC_K`$.

It is important to remark that the behaviour of $`BC_K`$ shown in Figure 2 is not peculiar of the particular set of bolometric corrections adopted in our models (based on Kurucz 1993 models), but it is also found, e.g., in the empirical results by Montegriffo et al. (1998).

In order to explain the RC behaviour in composite stellar populations, like the solar neighbourhood and the LMC, we have to consider the mean RC brightness in simple stellar populations. It is obvious that the expected differential properties of the mean RC brightness will somehow mirror the results shown in Figure 1.

In Paper II we have discussed in detail how to derive the mean RC level for a given stellar population. The most detailed approach comes from a population synthesis algorithm; a synthetic CMD is produced for a given stellar population model, and then $`M_\lambda ^{\mathrm{RC}}`$ is derived by fitting eq. 1 to the synthetic RC data. This is the method we have followed to produce the population corrections presented in Paper II and the ones we discuss also in this paper. However, it is very instructive to summarize a simpler approach presented in Paper II, since it shows clearly how to decompose a complex stellar population into its elementary ’simple’ constituents.

For a given isochrone of age and metallicity $`(t,Z)`$, one can perform the following integral over the isochrone section corresponding only to CHeB stars:

$$M_\lambda (t,Z)=2.5\mathrm{log}\left[\frac{1}{N_{\mathrm{cl}}(t,Z)}^{\mathrm{CHeB}}\varphi (m_\mathrm{i})\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}10}^{0.4M_\lambda }\text{d}m_\mathrm{i}\right]$$
(3)
where $`M_\lambda `$ is the absolute magnitude in the pass-band $`\lambda `$, $`m_\mathrm{i}`$ is the initial mass of the star at each isochrone point, and $`\varphi (m_\mathrm{i})`$ is the Salpeter IMF (number of stars with initial mass in the interval $`[m_\mathrm{i},m_\mathrm{i}+\text{d}m_\mathrm{i}]`$). $`N_{\mathrm{cl}}`$ is the number of clump stars (at age $`t`$) per unit mass of stars initially born. It is simply given by the integral of the IMF by number, along the CHeB isochrone section, i.e.

$$N_{\mathrm{cl}}(t,Z)=^{\mathrm{CHeB}}\varphi (m_\mathrm{i})\text{d}m_\mathrm{i}.$$
(4)
From eq. 3, accurate values for the mean clump magnitudes can be determined, in case of a simple stellar population. These mean magnitudes enter straightforwardly in the computation of the mean clump magnitude for a given galaxy model, of total age $`T`$. In fact, in this case one needs to perform the following integral:

$$M_\lambda (\mathrm{gal})=\frac{1}{N_{\mathrm{cl}}(\mathrm{gal})}_{t=0}^TN_{\mathrm{cl}}(t,Z)\psi (t)M_\lambda (t,Z)\text{d}t,$$
(5)
where

$$N_{\mathrm{cl}}(\mathrm{gal})=_{t=0}^TN_{\mathrm{cl}}(t,Z)\psi (t)\text{d}t.$$
(6)
The function $`\psi (t)`$ is the SFR (in $`M_{}`$ by unit time) at a moment $`t`$ in the past, for the galaxy model considered; in addition, also the AMR $`Z(t)`$ should be specified. One can average the magnitudes in eq. 5, instead of luminosities as in the previous eq. 3; the reason is, as explained in Paper II, that in this way one obtains a quantity similar to the $`M_\lambda ^{\mathrm{RC}}`$ derived by means of eq. 1. As discussed in Paper II, the population corrections evaluated with this approach are in very good agreement with the results obtained from the population synthesis approach; they are directly evaluated from the average RC brightness of the elementary simple populations, whose properties are highlighted in the following.

Table 1 presents the $`K`$-band mean absolute magnitude of clump stars, $`M_K`$, as a function of age and metallicity, as derived from Girardi et al. (2000) isochrones by means of eq. 3, together with the values of $`N_{\mathrm{cl}}(t,Z)`$. This table can be used to easily derive the population correction in the $`K`$-band for any galaxy model. The same information is provided for the $`V`$\- and $`I`$-band in Table 1 of Paper II. It is important to remark the pronounced maximum of $`N_{\mathrm{cl}}`$ for ages between 1 and 2 Gyr, which causes these relatively younger clump stars to be very numerous in galaxies with recent star formation. This aspect is thoroughly discussed in Paper II, and in Girardi (1999).

Figure 3 portrays the behaviour of the mean RC magnitude in simple stellar populations of different metallicities and ages, for the $`V`$, $`I`$ and $`K`$ passbands. In line with our desire to use the models only in a differential way, we have actually plotted the theoretical population correction (not the actual mean RC magnitude) for any given simple population considered. The theoretical counterpart of the local RC has been computed using the SFR and AMR by Rocha-Pinto et al. (2000a,b – see Paper II for further discussions on this issue).

It is evident that the behaviour of the population corrections – and therefore of the mean RC brightness – is strongly dependent on the photometric band used. For ages larger than about 1.5 Gyr $`\mathrm{\Delta }M_K^{\mathrm{RC}}`$ increases for increasing metallicity (hence $`M_K^{\mathrm{RC}}`$ decreases), which is exactly the contrary of what happens to $`\mathrm{\Delta }M_V^{\mathrm{RC}}`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }M_I^{\mathrm{RC}}`$. If we consider the entire \[M/H\] range spanned by our models (from $``$1.7 up to 0.20), for ages below $``$4 Gyr $`M_K^{\mathrm{RC}}`$ is on average less sensitive to \[M/H\] than both $`M_V^{\mathrm{RC}}`$ and $`M_I^{\mathrm{RC}}`$. However, when the age is larger than this limit $`M_K^{\mathrm{RC}}`$ is more affected by \[M/H\] than $`M_I^{\mathrm{RC}}`$; for ages larger than $``$11 Gyr, $`M_K^{\mathrm{RC}}`$ is more metallicity-dependent than also $`M_V^{\mathrm{RC}}`$, at least in case of \[M/H\] lower than $``$0.7. In the \[M/H\] interval between 0.0 and $``$0.4 (this lower limit corresponds approximately to the average metallicity of the LMC clump stars) $`M_K^{\mathrm{RC}}`$ is less affected by the metallicity than both $`M_I^{\mathrm{RC}}`$ and $`M_V^{\mathrm{RC}}`$, at least up to ages of about 11 Gyr. At super-solar \[M/H\] and for ages above $``$3 Gyr, $`M_K^{\mathrm{RC}}`$ is more sensitive to metallicity than the $`V`$ and $`I`$ brightness.

This complex relationship among the RC $`V`$, $`I`$ and $`K`$ brightness stems from the different sensitivities to age. In particular, $`M_K^{\mathrm{RC}}`$ is more affected by age than both $`M_I^{\mathrm{RC}}`$ and $`M_V^{\mathrm{RC}}`$, for the lower metallicities and higher ages.

## 3 Testing the theoretical multicolour population corrections

Paper II and Grocholski & Sarajedini (2002) have already shown separately the consistency of the theoretical results in the $`I`$ and $`K`$ band, when applied to a sample of Galactic open clusters of various ages and metallicities. The very different behaviour of the population corrections in different passbands allows one to perform the following additional test for the accuracy of the models.

Figure 4 compares the difference of the population corrections in two different photometric bands, between theory and observations, for a sample of Galactic open clusters with photometry in $`V`$, $`I`$ and $`K`$. The data about the clusters $`V`$ and $`I`$ magnitudes, as well as ages, \[Fe/H\] and reddening values are taken from Sarajedini (1999). $`K`$-band photometric data are from Grocholski & Sarajedini (2002). The clusters’ ages have been derived with respect to the reference cluster M 67, assumed to be 4 Gyr old on the base of previous studies; the age scaling has been obtained from the distance modulus difference (derived from the Main Sequence-fitting) with respect to M 67. It is important to notice that the difference of the evolutionary corrections in two different photometric bands is independent of the adopted distance modulus (while the cluster age is dependent on the relative Main Sequence-fitting distance moduli and the age zero-point). As for the empirical calibration of the local RC we have used the values provided by Alves et al. (2002), namely $`M_K^{\mathrm{RC}}=1.60\pm 0.03`$, $`M_I^{\mathrm{RC}}=0.26\pm 0.03`$, $`M_V^{\mathrm{RC}}=0.73\pm 0.03`$ (the theoretical values we obtain from our simulation are $`M_K^{\mathrm{RC}}=1.54`$, $`M_I^{\mathrm{RC}}=0.17`$, $`M_V^{\mathrm{RC}}=0.84`$; we stress again that nowhere we use individual absolute magnitudes from the stellar models, but only magnitude differences). The value $`M_I^{\mathrm{RC}}=0.26\pm 0.03`$ agrees, within 1$`\sigma `$, with the previous determination by Stanek & Garnavich (1998).

The agreement between theory and observations is satisfactory – also considering the uncertainty of the order of $``$0.1 dex associated to the individual cluster \[M/H\] estimates –, another confirmation for the population corrections predicted by the stellar models we employ. In fact, taking into account the very different behaviour of the predicted evolutionary corrections in $`V`$, $`I`$ and $`K`$, it is highly improbable that a combination of errors in the theory and in the adopted clusters’ parameters, were to produce such a good agreement.

Another interesting test makes use of the available $`V`$\- and $`K`$-photometry of the few RC stars populating the $`Hipparcos`$ database for the Hyades and Praesepe clusters. There is a large body of work suggesting that these two clusters share the same age and metallicity (e.g., the discussion and references in van Leeuwen 1999; Castellani et al. 2002). From the $`Hipparcos`$ data the cluster distances result to be $`\mu _0^{\mathrm{Hyades}}=3.33\pm 0.01`$ and $`\mu _0^{\mathrm{Praesepe}}=6.37\pm 0.15`$ (Perryman et al. 1997; van Leeuwen 1999); a comparison of their CMD corrected for the different distance moduli, as performed by Castellani et al. (2002), confirms a basically identical metallicity and age, since the good overlap of the upper main sequence and turn off, and also of the RC region.

For a common age $`t=625\pm 50`$ million years (higher than the lower limit for the existence of the RC, which is of about 500 million years) and $`[\mathrm{Fe}/\mathrm{H}]=0.14`$ (Perryman et al. 1997), we have determined the appropriate population correction and plotted in Figure 5 the theoretical luminosity function (number of stars per magnitude bin) for RC stars in the $`V`$\- and $`K`$-band (the normalization is arbitrary); the brightness of the RC has the appropriate mean value obtained after applying the theoretical population corrections (which are of the order of $`0.3`$ mag in both passbands) to the observed local RC absolute magnitude. On the same plot we show the $`V`$ and $`K`$ absolute magnitude of the 6 stars (2 in the Hyades and 4 in Praesepe) populating the RC of the composite CMD of these two clusters. Due to the small size of the star sample it is not possible to determine a meaningful mean brightness to compare with theory, but one can notice that the empirical stellar absolute magnitudes are in good agreement with the location and the width of the RC as predicted by the theoretical population corrections.

As a warning, it is also important to take into account the fact that the values of $`\mathrm{\Delta }M_K^{\mathrm{RC}}`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }M_V^{\mathrm{RC}}`$ are both strong function of $`t`$ in this age range (in case Praesepe is younger than the Hyades by $``$ 100 million years, its RC would be on average brighter by $``$0.2 mag than the Hyades RC); we notice however that here is no obvious offset between the two sets of observational points, and between them and the theoretical luminosity function. In conclusion, we regard the agreement between theoretical and empirical data in Figure 5 as an additional indication of the accuracy of the population corrections predicted by theory.

The generally small values of $`\mathrm{\Delta }M_K^{\mathrm{RC}}`$ for ages between $``$1.5 and $``$4 Gyr, as displayed in Figure 3, raise the question of to what extent one is allowed to disregard the population corrections when considering the $`K`$-band RC magnitude as distance indicator (see also the discussion in Grocholski & Sarajedini 2002). In this age range, the lower sensitivity of the $`K`$-band RC brightness to both age and metallicity may suggest to use the local $`K`$-band RC brightness as a perfect standard candle, without taking into account the appropriate $`\mathrm{\Delta }M_K^{\mathrm{RC}}`$.

To answer this question, Figure 6 shows again the population corrections to the $`K`$ band for simple stellar populations, but this time it is also marked the region in which the population correction is within $`\pm 0.1`$ mag. If a systematic uncertainty of this order on the RC distance is considered to be acceptable, the allowed range of age and metallicity is easily evaluated. For example, one can obtain distances with this precision, without evaluating the population correction, for $`t`$ and $`Z`$ values typical of the sample of Galactic open clusters older than $``$2.5 Gyr. It is however not allowed to neglect $`apriori`$ the evaluation of $`\mathrm{\Delta }M_K^{\mathrm{RC}}`$, due to the fact that it can reach values as high as $`\pm `$0.5 mag.

## 4 $`V`$-,$`I`$-, $`K`$-band population corrections for external galaxies

Having assessed the adequacy of the theoretical population corrections for simple stellar populations, in this section we proceed to compute the corrections in $`V`$, $`I`$ and $`K`$ for the composite systems discussed in Paper II, using the appropriate SFR and AMR discussed in Paper II; the results are summarized in Table 2. The full references for the SFR and AMR can be found in table 4 of Paper II.

As a test, we show in Figs. 7 and 8 the empirical data for the local RC (from Alves 2000) in the $`V`$, $`I`$ and $`K`$ passbands, and the results from the theoretical simulations, respectively. Notice the good correspondence between the predicted and observed shape of the RC in the different colour planes. In particular, the RC in the $`M_I`$$`(VI)`$ plane is basically horizontal (see the in-depth discussion of Paper II on the local RC and its properties in the $`M_I`$$`(VI)`$ plane), while in the $`M_K`$$`(VK)`$ plane is slightly tilted towards higher $`M_K`$ values, and in the $`M_V`$$`(VI)`$ plane is tilted towards lower $`M_V`$ values. These properties are well reproduced by the theoretical models. More in detail, the observed slopes $`\mathrm{\Delta }M_V`$/$`\mathrm{\Delta }(VI)`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }M_K`$/$`\mathrm{\Delta }(VK)`$ are equal to, respectively, 1.46$`\pm `$0.27 and $`0.63\pm `$0.12, which compare well with the corresponding theoretical values 1.18$`\pm `$0.07 and $`0.54\pm `$0.02. In addition, the theoretical simulation predicts no significant correlations between \[Fe/H\] and either $`M_K`$ or $`M_V`$, in agreement with the empirical data by Alves (2000).

The data in Table 2, in conjunction with the empirical $`V`$, $`I`$ and $`K`$ absolute brightness of the local RC reported in Section 3, can be used to derive simultaneously reddening and distances to nearby galaxies, following the technique employed by Alves et al. (2002). The basic idea is that the apparent distance moduli determined simultaneously in various photometric bands, using the appropriate population corrections, must all provide the same unreddened distance; after assuming a reddening law, one can therefore use this constraint to derive simultaneously reddening and true distance modulus. Alves et al. (2002) have adopted for the reddening law the following ratios: $`A_K`$/E(B-V)=0.35, $`A_I`$/E(B-V)=1.96, $`A_V`$/E(B-V)=3.24. We will use these same ratios throughout the rest of this section.

The LMC value of $`\mathrm{\Delta }M_V^{\mathrm{RC}}`$ provided in Table 2 is slightly different from the one used by Alves et al. (2002), which we obtained after a preliminary evaluation of this quantity. This small difference (0.04 mag) does not influence appreciably the results obtained by Alves et al. (2002). In fact, we repeated their analysis employing the $`\mathrm{\Delta }M_V^{\mathrm{RC}}`$ of Table 2 ($`\mathrm{\Delta }M_I^{\mathrm{RC}}`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }M_K^{\mathrm{RC}}`$ are unchanged), and obtained $`\mu _0`$=18.505$`\pm `$0.045 and $`E(BV)`$=0.079$`\pm `$0.014, almost coincident with $`\mu _0`$=18.506$`\pm `$0.033 and $`E(BV)`$=0.089$`\pm `$0.015 obtained by Alves et al. (2002).

We have further tested this method (and the corresponding population corrections) on the Galactic globular cluster 47 Tuc, for which an accurate $`Hipparcos`$-based empirical main-sequence fitting distance $`\mu _0`$=13.25$`\pm `$0.07 has been recently provided by Percival et al. (2002), and reddening estimates are also available ($`E(BV)`$=0.04$`\pm `$0.02, see the discussion in Percival et al. 2002). Spectroscopic analyses give \[Fe/H\]=$``$0.70$`\pm `$0.1, together with an enhancement of the $`\alpha `$-elements typical of the Galactic Halo population. We have taken into account the $`\alpha `$-element enhancement – as in Paper II – using the results by Salasnich et al. (2000). $`V`$\- and $`I`$-band data come from the photometry employed by Percival et al. (2002), while $`K`$-band data are taken from the analysis by Grocholski & Sarajedini (2002). We have assumed an a priori age of 11 $`\pm `$ 2 Gyr for the cluster, which corresponds to the age range allowed by an uncertainty of more than $`\pm `$0.1 mag around the main sequence fitting distance. By applying Alves et al. (2002) procedure we have obtained $`\mu _0`$=13.19$`\pm `$0.07 and $`E(BV)`$=0.055$`\pm `$0.015, in good agreement with the independent determinations given before.

$`K`$-band data for a large variety of Galactic and extragalactic stellar populations are not yet widely available, while $`VI`$ data are much more common in the literature. We have therefore applied Alves et al. (2002) technique using only $`VI`$ data. If, as shown in the previous section, our population corrections are accurate, one expects to obtain distances consistent with the results from $`VIK`$ data, albeit possibly with larger errors due to the lack of an additional constraint from the $`K`$-band magnitudes. In case of old metal poor stellar populations, the RC $`V`$ and $`I`$ brightness is much less dependent on age than the $`K`$ magnitude, so that the assumptions about the stellar ages are less critical. By repeating the determination of 47 Tuc distance with the $`VI`$ data only, we obtained $`\mu _0`$=13.26$`\pm `$0.07 and $`E(BV)`$=0.02$`\pm `$0.02, consistent with the result from $`VIK`$ photometry. The same exercise can be performed on Alves et al. (2002) LMC data; we derived in this case $`\mu _0`$=18.53$`\pm `$0.07 and $`E(BV)`$=0.071$`\pm `$0.022, in very good agreement with the result from the full $`VIK`$ analysis.

As a final exercise, we have studied the field LMC-SC6 from the OGLE-II database (Udalski et al. 2000); this field overlaps with the field centred on the eclipsing binary HV982, studied by Larsen et al. (2000). We have corrected the zero point of the OGLE-II $`VI`$ photometry, in order to place it on the same system of Alves et al. (2002), and employed stars with random photometric error smaller than 0.04 mag.

We obtain for the RC level in field LMC-SC6 $`V^{\mathrm{RC}}`$=19.21 and $`I^{\mathrm{RC}}`$=18.17. By employing the population corrections given in Table 2 we have obtained $`\mu _0`$=18.47$`\pm `$0.04 and $`E(BV)`$=0.085$`\pm `$0.015. This distance agrees well within the errors with Alves et al. (2002) results. The minimum reddening for this field as estimated by Larsen et al. (2000) is $`E(BV)`$=0.085$`\pm `$0.02. Fitzpatrick et al. (2002) obtain from spectral fitting of the eclipsing binary HV982 a value $`E(BV)`$=0.086$`\pm `$0.005. Oestreicher et al. (1995) provides a minimum reddening of 0.05 mag. All these values are consistent with our reddening estimate for the RC population.

## 5 Conclusions

We have presented a detailed analysis of the behaviour of the RC brightness in the $`K`$-band, together with tests for the accuracy of the predicted population corrections to the local RC $`VIK`$ brightness, and a discussion of the Alves et al. (2002) method for deriving simultaneously distance and reddening using multiband RC photometric data. More in detail:

– we have shown that the $`K`$-band brightness of the RC is mainly determined by the behaviour of the bolometric correction to the $`K`$-band. For ages larger than about 1.5 Gyr the trend of the RC brightness with respect to \[M/H\] is reversed in comparison with the $`V`$\- and $`I`$-band, that is, $`M_K^{\mathrm{RC}}`$ decreases for increasing metallicity. By considering the entire \[M/H\] range spanned by our models (Girardi et al. 2000), for ages below $``$4 Gyr $`M_K^{\mathrm{RC}}`$ is on average less sensitive to \[M/H\] than both $`M_V^{\mathrm{RC}}`$ and $`M_I^{\mathrm{RC}}`$. At higher ages $`M_K^{\mathrm{RC}}`$ is more affected by \[M/H\] than $`M_I^{\mathrm{RC}}`$; for ages larger than $``$11 Gyr it is more metallicity-dependent than also $`M_V^{\mathrm{RC}}`$, at least for \[M/H\] lower than $``$0.7. It is interesting to notice that for \[M/H\] between 0.0 and $``$0.4 $`M_K^{\mathrm{RC}}`$ is less affected by the metallicity than both $`M_I^{\mathrm{RC}}`$ and $`M_V^{\mathrm{RC}}`$, at least up to ages of about 11 Gyr. This complex relationship among the RC $`V`$, $`I`$ and $`K`$ brightness is due to their different sensitivities to age. In particular, $`M_K^{\mathrm{RC}}`$ is more affected by age than both $`M_I^{\mathrm{RC}}`$ and $`M_V^{\mathrm{RC}}`$, for the lower metallicities and higher ages. Due to the non-trivial dependence of $`M_K^{\mathrm{RC}}`$ on both \[M/H\] and age, it is always necessary – as in the case of $`M_V^{\mathrm{RC}}`$ and $`M_I^{\mathrm{RC}}`$ – to determine the appropriate population correction for the stellar population under scrutiny, when using the RC as a standard candle;

– we have provided in Table 1 values of the RC average $`K`$ brightness for a large range of \[M/H\] and ages. These data, used in conjunction with eq. 5, eq. 6, and the data in Table. 1 of Paper II, can be employed to determine multiband population corrections for any given stellar population, once SFR and AMR are prescribed;

– we have simultaneously and positively tested the evolutionary corrections $`\mathrm{\Delta }M_V^{\mathrm{RC}}`$, $`\mathrm{\Delta }M_I^{\mathrm{RC}}`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }M_K^{\mathrm{RC}}`$ against Galactic open cluster data;

– we have discussed the method applied by Alves et al. (2002) for determining reddening and distance from the $`V`$-, $`I`$\- and $`K`$-band RC brightness; we have positively tested this technique on the Galactic globular cluster 47 Tuc, for which both an empirical parallax-based main sequence fitting distance and reddening estimates exist. We have also studied the case of using only $`V`$ and $`I`$ photometry, recovering consistent results for both reddening and distance. Application of this method to an OGLE-II field, and the results by Alves et al. (2002), confirm a LMC distance modulus of about 18.50, in agreement with the $`HST`$ extragalactic distance scale zero-point (Freedman et al. 2001).

## Acknowledgments

We thank D. Alves for his useful comments on a preliminary version of the manuscript.


text:
# The fully entangled fraction as an inclusive measure of entanglement applications

## 1 Introduction

A pure quantum state is entangled if it is impossible to factorize into a tensor product of states for the separate systems (e.g., the singlet state of two spin-$`\frac{1}{2}`$ particles, $`(1/\sqrt{2})(|01|10)`$, is entangled). This property, originally introduced to sharpen discussions of foundational issues in quantum theory , has been studied extensively with regard to nonlocal quantum correlations  indicated by the observed violation of Bell’s inequality . In the past decade, the focus of entanglement studies has shifted toward applications which use the nonclassical features of quantum systems to surpass classical limitations on communications and computation. Such applications are part of the emerging field of quantum information  and include quantum cryptography , dense coding , teleportation , entanglement swapping , and quantum computation .

Due to this recent interest in quantum entanglement applications, the characterization of entanglement in a mixed bipartite system has become an intensely studied problem. In general, mixed states are entangled if it is impossible to represent the density operator as an incoherent sum of factorizable pure states . There are a number of measures of entanglement for a bipartite system. Three closely related measures are the entanglement of formation, the entanglement of distillation, and the concurrence. The entanglement of formation is defined as the least number of maximally entangled states required to asymptotically prepare a mixed state $`\rho `$ with local operations and classical communications  and the entanglement of distillation is defined as the asymptotic yield of maximally entangled states that can be extracted from $`\rho `$ with local operations and classical communications . The concurrence  is monotonically related to the entanglement of formation, and therefore an equally valid measure of entanglement, but is the only measure described here that provides a closed expression for the simplest case of a two qubit bipartite system . Relative entropy  measures entanglement by considering the ability to distinguish $`\rho `$ from all separable states and negativity  quantifies the degree to which the eigenvalues of the partial transpose fail to satisfy the partial transpose separability condition . To be sure all of these entanglement measures can be computed, like any physical quantity in quantum mechanics, from knowledge of the density matrix which can be found experimentally with tomography , but their relation to experimental consequences are indirect at best. For example, a two qubit mixed state described by an ensemble of partially entangled states can always be distilled, in a non-unique fashion, into a smaller ensemble of maximally entangled states which can in turn be used for useful quantum information processing .

Modern conventional wisdom holds that characterizing entanglement in all but the simplest of cases is a hard problem. Even understanding the relevant experimental quantities that are related to entanglement is difficult. It may not be necessary, however, to quantify the entanglement of a state in order to quantify the quantum information processing significance of a state. For example, Horodecki et. al.  demonstrated that the maximum teleportation fidelity for a general two qubit system is given by,

$$F_T^{max}=\frac{1}{3}\left(1+2F\right).$$
(1)
where $`F`$ is the fully entangled fraction  and is defined as the overlap between a mixed state $`\widehat{\rho }`$ and a maximally entangled state $`|\mathrm{\Phi }`$ maximized over all $`|\mathrm{\Phi }`$,

$$F=\underset{|\mathrm{\Phi }}{\text{max}}\{\mathrm{\Phi }|\widehat{\rho }|\mathrm{\Phi }\}.$$
(2)
Unlike entanglement, the fully entangled fraction does have a clear experimental interpretation as the optimal ability of a state to teleport and it is clear that the degree to which fully entangled fraction is greater than $`1/2`$ ($`F_T>2/3`$) can be used to quantify the teleporting ability of a state over the best “classical teleportation” protocols. This suggests that it may be possible to define a measure of entanglement applications directly. Such a mathematical quantity may be just as useful as a true entanglement measure, but more practical from a theoretical standpoint. It is natural to wonder whether the fully entangled fraction is such a quantity, that is, can it be used to measure the general quantum information significance of a state. To answer this question for the case of two qubits, in Sec. 2, we examine the relationship between the fully entangled fraction and the fidelities of all two qubit applications which have been experimentally demonstrated to date: dense coding, teleportation, entanglement swapping, and quantum cryptography (Bell inequalities). We consider these applications with a general two qubit mixed state in place of the standard maximally entangled pure state and find that the fully entangled fraction does indeed quantify the quantum processing significance of dense coding, teleportation, entanglement swapping, and quantum cryptography (violating Bell’s inequality) in an inclusive sense. We are taking “inclusive” to mean that a non-zero value indicates that a state can perform at least one of these applications better than allowed “classically” and a zero value indicates that a state cannot perform any of these applications better than allowed “classically”. Similar approaches have examined continuous variable teleportation  and Bell inequality experiments . The fully entangled fraction has a simple closed-form analytic expression, in the case of two qubits, which we rederive in Sec. 3 under the present context. In Sec. 4 we establish upper and lower bounds between the fully entangled fraction and the only measure of entanglement described above with a closed-form expression for a general two-qubit state, the concurrence, and in Sec. 5 we conclude and discuss generalizations of these ideas to more complicated systems.

## 2 The relation between two-qubit applications and the maximally entangled fraction

### 2.1 Dense Coding

The relationship between the fully entangled fraction and dense coding  (See Fig. 1a) is clearest. In this entanglement application Alice and Bob each receive one qubit of a maximally entangled state, $`|\mathrm{\Phi }^1\sqrt{1/2}(|00+|11)`$, where the first entry denotes Bob’s qubit and the second denotes Alice’s qubit. Alice can encode 2 bits of information in four orthogonal states by applying one of four local unitaries solely to her own qubit,

$`\widehat{1}\widehat{1}|\mathrm{\Phi }^1`$ $`=`$ $`|\mathrm{\Phi }^1`$
$`\widehat{1}i\widehat{X}|\mathrm{\Phi }^1`$ $`=`$ $`|\mathrm{\Phi }^2i{\displaystyle \frac{|01+|10}{\sqrt{2}}}`$
$`\widehat{1}i\widehat{Y}|\mathrm{\Phi }^1`$ $`=`$ $`|\mathrm{\Phi }^3{\displaystyle \frac{|01|10}{\sqrt{2}}}`$
$`\widehat{1}i\widehat{Z}|\mathrm{\Phi }^1`$ $`=`$ $`|\mathrm{\Phi }^4i{\displaystyle \frac{|00|11}{\sqrt{2}}},`$ (3)
where $`\{\widehat{X},\widehat{Y},\widehat{Z}\}`$ are the Pauli operators  and $`|\mathrm{\Phi }^j`$ $`(j=1,2,3,4)`$ are the so-called “magic basis” states , an orthonormal set of maximally entangled states with a convenient phase convention. After receiving one qubit from Alice, Bob can read out two bits of information with a fidelity of one by performing a Bell state analysis on his two particles. To measure entanglement with this protocol the maximally entangled state $`|\mathrm{\Phi }^1`$ is replaced with an arbitrary two qubit state $`\widehat{\rho }`$ and the dense coding fidelity is defined as an average over the four possible outcomes,

$`F_{DC}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}(\mathrm{\Phi }^1|\widehat{\rho }|\mathrm{\Phi }^1+\mathrm{\Phi }^2|(\widehat{1}i\widehat{X})\widehat{\rho }(\widehat{1}i\widehat{X})^{}|\mathrm{\Phi }^2`$ (4)
$`+\mathrm{\Phi }^3|(\widehat{1}i\widehat{Y})\widehat{\rho }(\widehat{1}i\widehat{Y})^{}|\mathrm{\Phi }^3`$
$`+\mathrm{\Phi }^4|(\widehat{1}i\widehat{Z})\widehat{\rho }(\widehat{1}i\widehat{Z})^{}|\mathrm{\Phi }^4).`$
Using the definition of the $`|\mathrm{\Phi }^j`$ basis states, the dense coding fidelity reduces to the fidelity of $`\widehat{\rho }`$ relative to a single maximally entangled state,

$$F_{DC}=\mathrm{\Phi }^1|\widehat{\rho }|\mathrm{\Phi }^1.$$
(5)
However, it is natural to expect that, experimentally, one should attempt to maximize the utility of the state by choosing the best possible local coordinate basis in which to carry out the experiment. Thus, the intrinsic capabilities of the state should take this into account. Mathematically, this is expressed by maximizing the quantity $`\mathrm{\Phi }^1|\widehat{\rho }|\mathrm{\Phi }^1`$ over all possible local unitary operators, viz.,

$$F_{DC}^{max}=\underset{\widehat{U}_A,\widehat{U}_B}{\text{max}}\{\mathrm{\Phi }^1|(\widehat{U}_A\widehat{U}_B)^{}\widehat{\rho }(\widehat{U}_A\widehat{U}_B)|\mathrm{\Phi }^1\}.$$
(6)
Because all maximally entangled states are related under local unitary operations, this is equivalent to maximizing $`\mathrm{\Phi }|\widehat{\rho }|\mathrm{\Phi }`$ over all maximally entangled states $`|\mathrm{\Phi }`$ which is just the fully entangled fraction,

$$F_{DC}^{max}=F.$$
(7)
It is clear that the maximum fidelity for dense coding ($`F_{DC}^{max}=1`$) occurs when $`\widehat{\rho }`$ is maximally entangled and the maximum fidelity for a separable state ($`F_{DC}^{max}=1/2`$) occurs when $`\widehat{\rho }`$ is pure.

### 2.2 Teleportation

For pedagogical reasons we next examine teleportation  (See Fig. 1b), whose relationship to the fully entangled fraction was first worked out by Horodecki et. al.  The goal of teleportation is to use a maximally entangled pair of qubits to transmit an arbitrary quantum state from one point to another with the communication of only two classical bits. Briefly, Alice has a qubit (particle 1) in an unknown quantum state $`|\psi _1=\mathrm{cos}(\theta /2)|0+\mathrm{sin}(\theta /2)e^{i\varphi }|1`$ ($`0<\theta <\pi ,0<\varphi <2\pi `$) and Alice and Bob again share a maximally entangled state $`|\mathrm{\Phi }^1_{23}`$ (particles 2 and 3 respectively). Alice performs a Bell state analysis on her two qubits (particles 1 and 2) measuring one of four possible outcomes $`\{M1,M2\}\{0,1\}`$. Using two bits of classical information she informs Bob of the outcome and he applies the unitary transformation $`\widehat{Z}^{M2}\widehat{X}^{M1}`$, transforming his qubit into Alice’s original quantum state with a fidelity of unity. Suppose that, instead of the maximally entangled state $`|\mathrm{\Phi }^1`$, we attempt teleportation using an arbitrary two qubit state $`\widehat{\rho }`$. Following Popescu , we define the teleportation fidelity as an ensemble average over all input states $`|\psi `$,

$$F_T=\frac{1}{4\pi }_0^{2\pi }_0^\pi f(\theta ,\varphi )\mathrm{sin}(\theta )𝑑\theta 𝑑\varphi ,$$
(8)
where $`f(\theta ,\varphi )=\psi |\widehat{\rho }_{out}|\psi `$. This quantity can be considered a measure of the usefulness of $`\widehat{\rho }`$ for performing teleportation. It is easiest to compute by exchanging the measurements and control operations  so that the Bell basis transformation is followed by a controlled-NOT between particles 2 and 3 and a controlled-Z between particles 1 and 3 (See Ref. , Ch. 4 for a description of these quantum gates). The trace over Alice’s system can be performed and the integral above can be computed to give,

$$F_T=\frac{1}{3}\left(1+2\mathrm{\Phi }^1|\widehat{\rho }|\mathrm{\Phi }^1\right).$$
(9)
Again, maximizing this quantity over all over all possible local unitary operators gives,

$$F_T^{max}=\frac{1}{3}\left(1+2F\right).$$
(10)
### 2.3 Entanglement Swapping

The relationship between the fully entangled fraction and entanglement swapping  (See Fig. 1c) is similar to the case of dense coding. In this entanglement application, there are two pairs of maximally entangled states in a direct product state $`|\mathrm{\Phi }_{1234}=|\mathrm{\Phi }^1_{12}|\mathrm{\Phi }^1_{34}`$ (where $`1,2,3,`$ and $`4`$) label the particles respectively. If Alice receives particles $`1`$ and $`3`$ and Bob receives particles $`2`$ and $`4`$, the state can be reexpressed in this basis as,

$`|\mathrm{\Phi }_{1234}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}(|\mathrm{\Phi }^1_{13}|\mathrm{\Phi }^1_{24}|\mathrm{\Phi }^2_{13}|\mathrm{\Phi }^2_{24}`$ (11)
$`+|\mathrm{\Phi }^3_{13}|\mathrm{\Phi }^3_{24}|\mathrm{\Phi }^4_{13}|\mathrm{\Phi }^4_{24}).`$
A Bell measurement by Alice (Bob) will project Bob’s (Alice’s) particle into a maximally entangled state despite the fact that the two particles have never interacted in the past. Replacing either maximally entangled state with an arbitrary density matrix $`\widehat{\rho }`$ and making use of symbolic manipulation software, the fidelity of entanglement swapping can be defined similarly to dense coding as an average over the fidelities of the four possible outcomes with a similar result,

$$F_{ES}=\mathrm{\Phi }^1|\widehat{\rho }|\mathrm{\Phi }^1.$$
(12)
Once again, maximizing this quantity over all over all possible local unitary operators gives,

$$F_{ES}^{max}=F.$$
(13)
### 2.4 Quantum cryptography (Bell inequalities)

Last, we examine the relationship between the fully entangled fraction and Bell inequality experiments, which occur, for example, in the Ekert protocol for secure key distribution . The standard Bell correlation function  is given by,

$`B`$ $`=`$ $`|\text{Tr}\{\widehat{S}_1(\varphi _1)\widehat{S}_2(\varphi _2)\widehat{\rho }\widehat{S}_1(\varphi _1)\widehat{S}_2(\varphi _2^{})\widehat{\rho }`$ (14)
$`+\widehat{S}_1(\varphi _1^{})\widehat{S}_2(\varphi _2)\widehat{\rho }+\widehat{S}_1(\varphi _1^{})\widehat{S}_2(\varphi _2^{})\widehat{\rho }\left\}\right|,`$
where $`\widehat{S}_j(\varphi _j)=\mathrm{cos}(\varphi _j)\widehat{Z}_j+\mathrm{sin}(\varphi _j)\widehat{X}_j`$. The Bell inequality is given by $`B2`$ and is violated when $`B>2`$. The detectors are set to their optimal values $`\{\varphi _1=0,\varphi _1^{}=\pi /2,\varphi _2=\pi /4,\varphi _2^{}=3\pi /4\}`$ such that the violation is maximum for the maximally entangled state $`|\mathrm{\Phi }^1`$. This state is then replaced with a general state $`\widehat{\rho }`$ and the Bell correlation function as a function of $`\widehat{\rho }`$ is given by,

$`B(\widehat{\rho })`$ $`=`$ $`\sqrt{2}\left|\text{Tr}\left\{(\widehat{X}\widehat{X}+\widehat{Z}\widehat{Z})\widehat{\rho }\right\}\right|`$ (15)
$`=`$ $`\sqrt{2}\left|{\displaystyle \underset{j}{}}\mathrm{\Phi }^j|(\widehat{X}\widehat{X}+\widehat{Z}\widehat{Z})\widehat{\rho }|\mathrm{\Phi }^j\right|`$
$`=`$ $`2\sqrt{2}|\mathrm{\Phi }^1|\widehat{\rho }|\mathrm{\Phi }^1\mathrm{\Phi }^3|\widehat{\rho }|\mathrm{\Phi }^3|.`$
It is clear that the normalized expression $`B/2\sqrt{2}`$, maximized over all local unitaries operating on the separate subsystems, will always be less than or equal to the fully entangled fraction. Therefore, a fully entangled fraction greater than $`1/2`$ is a sufficiency condition for violating Bell’s inequality. Munro et. al. considered a similar situation by maximizing Bell correlations over all possible detector orientations $`\{\varphi _1,\varphi _1^{},\varphi _2,\varphi _2^{}\}`$ . We have verified numerically that this quantity is also always less than the fully entangled fraction by searching $`500,000`$ random states weighted toward higher concurrences (we explain how this is done in Sec. 4). This result is not unexpected due to the fact that it is well known that there exist mixed states which can teleport arbitrary quantum states better than any classical protocol, yet fail to violate standard Bell inequalities .

It is interesting to note that in general, measures which maximize the overlap between a fiducial pure state and an input state with respect to a local basis, viz.,

$$F(|\psi _f,\widehat{\rho })=\underset{\widehat{U}_A,\widehat{U}_B}{\text{max}}\{\psi _f|(\widehat{U}_A\widehat{U}_B)^{}\widehat{\rho }(\widehat{U}_A\widehat{U}_B)|\psi _f\},$$
(16)
have the largest difference in fidelities between a maximally entangled state and a separable pure state,

$$\mathrm{\Delta }=F(|\psi _f,|\mathrm{\Phi }\mathrm{\Phi }|)F(|\psi _f,|uvuv|),$$
(17)
when $`|\psi _f`$ is maximally entangled. This can be seen by writing the fiducial state in a Schmidt decomposition $`|\psi _f=\left(\widehat{U}_A\widehat{U}_B\right)\left(\mathrm{cos}(\theta /2)|00+\mathrm{sin}(\theta /2)|11\right)`$ , maximizing each term in Eq. (17) separately over the local unitary operators, and then maximizing $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ with respect to $`\theta `$ to show that the maximum occurs for $`\theta =\pi /2`$. It is physically intuitive that this statement will also be true if this measure is generalized to fiducial mixed states. Although not a rigorous proof, this suggests that the fully entangled fraction is the “best” quantifier of entanglement applications in the sense of being the most inclusive.

## 3 A simple closed-form expression for the fully entangled fraction

In Sec. 2 we deduced that the fully entangled fraction can be physically interpreted as an inclusive measure of entanglement applications. That is, when $`F`$ is greater than $`1/2`$ a mixed state can at least perform dense coding, teleportation, or entanglement swapping with a fidelity that is better than any separable state using classical protocols. It is clear that this quantity is invariant under local unitary operators, which can be viewed passively as a basis transformation, but not under local non-unitary operators (e.g., projective measurements and dissipation) . These non-unitary operators can invoke irreversible changes in a state that are less useful for understanding the intrinsic properties of a quantum state. In light of this result we briefly reprise here the derivation of a closed-form expression, first derived by Bennett et. al. , of the fully entangled fraction in the case of an arbitrary state of two qubits. We take as our starting point the fully entangled fraction as expressed by Eq. (6). This expression can be simplified by using a property of maximally entangled states, $`\widehat{U}_A\widehat{U}_B|\mathrm{\Phi }^1=\widehat{1}\widehat{U}_B\widehat{Y}\widehat{U}_A^{}\widehat{Y}|\mathrm{\Phi }^1`$, and redefining the optimizing unitary $`\widehat{U}=\widehat{U}_B\widehat{Y}\widehat{U}_A^{}\widehat{Y}`$, so that this expression involves only a single maximization over a local unitary operator,

$$F=\underset{\widehat{U}}{\text{max}}\{\mathrm{\Phi }^1|(\widehat{1}\widehat{U})^{}\widehat{\rho }(\widehat{1}\widehat{U})|\mathrm{\Phi }^1\}.$$
(18)
Expanding $`|\mathrm{\Phi }=(\widehat{1}\widehat{U})|\mathrm{\Phi }^1`$ in a Pauli basis and making use of the basis states defined in Eq. (1),

$`|\mathrm{\Phi }`$ $`=`$ $`\widehat{1}\left(x_1\widehat{1}+ix_2\widehat{X}+ix_3\widehat{Y}+ix_4\widehat{Z}\right)|\mathrm{\Phi }^1`$ (19)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{n=1}{\overset{4}{}}}x_n|\mathrm{\Phi }^n,`$
allows one to represent an arbitrary maximally entangled state by four real parameters $`x_n`$ ($`n=1,2,3,4`$) that satisfy $`g(x_1,x_2,x_3,x_4)x_1^2+x_2^2+x_3^2+x_4^2=1`$. Inserting this expression into Eq. (18) gives,

$$F(x_1,x_2,x_3,x_4)=\underset{n,m=1}{\overset{4}{}}M_{n,m}x_nx_m,$$
(20)
where $`M_{n,m}=\mathrm{\Phi }^n|\widehat{\rho }|\mathrm{\Phi }^m`$. The extrema condition is found by including the constraint with an undetermined Lagrange multiplier $`\lambda `$,

$$\frac{}{x_k}\left\{F(x_1,x_2,x_3,x_4)+\lambda g(x_1,x_2,x_3,x_4)\right\}=0.$$
(21)
This condition in conjunction with the hermiticity of $`\widehat{\rho }`$ gives rise to an eigenvalue equation,

$$\underset{n=1}{\overset{4}{}}\text{Re}\left\{M_{k,n}\right\}x_n=\lambda x_k.$$
(22)
The eigenvectors $`(x_1^j,x_2^j,x_3^j,x_4^j)`$ ($`j=1,2,3,4`$) of this real, symmetric matrix are orthonormal since $`g=1`$. Inserting the eigenvectors into Eq. (20) and making use of their ortho-normalization results in $`F=\text{max}\{\eta ^j\}`$, where $`\eta ^j=\lambda ^j`$ are the corresponding eigenvalues of this matrix. It is convenient to renormalize this expression so that it is $`1`$ for a maximally entangled state and $`0`$ for a separable state,

$$E(\widehat{\rho })=2\left(\text{max}\{\eta ^j,0\}\frac{1}{2}\right),$$
(23)
where $`\eta ^j`$ are the eigenvalues of the matrix $`M_{n,m}=\text{Re}\{\mathrm{\Phi }^n|\widehat{\rho }|\mathrm{\Phi }^m\}`$, $`|\mathrm{\Phi }^j`$ being the maximally entangled basis states defined in Eq. (1).

## 4 The relation between the fully entangled fraction and the concurrence

The fully entangled fraction, once measured, establishes lower and upper bounds for the concurrence. It has been proved that the fully entangled fraction is a lower bound for the entanglement of formation  and therefore a lower bound for the concurrence which is monotonically related to the entanglement of formation. The states which form the lower bound are given by a convex sum of a maximally mixed state and an arbitrary pure state,

$$\widehat{\rho }_{}=ϵ\frac{\widehat{1}}{4}+(1ϵ)|\psi _{pure}\psi _{pure}|,$$
(24)
where $`(0<ϵ<1)`$. If the pure state is decomposed in a Schmidt basis, $`|\psi _{pure}=\left(\widehat{U}_A\widehat{U}_B\right)\left(\mathrm{cos}(\theta /2)|00+\mathrm{sin}(\theta /2)|11\right)`$ , the local unitaries will not contribute and we find that $`E(\widehat{\rho }_{})=C(\widehat{\rho }_{})=(1ϵ)\mathrm{sin}\theta ϵ/2`$ (The maximum between this number and zero is implicit).

The upper bound for the concurrence is found numerically by doing a numerical search over one million random density matrices (See Fig. 2),

$$R=\frac{TT^{}}{\text{Tr}\{TT^{}\}},$$
(25)
where $`T`$ is a 4X4 matrix whose elements $`T_{n,m}=t_r+it_i`$ are determined by the random numbers $`t_r,t_i`$ chosen uniformly on the interval $`\{0,1\}`$. We find that the upper bound for the concurrence occurs for states that are a convex sum of a direct product state $`|uv`$ and a maximally entangled state $`|\mathrm{\Phi }`$,

$$\widehat{\rho }_+=\zeta |uvvu|+(1\zeta )|\mathrm{\Phi }\mathrm{\Phi }|,$$
(26)
such that $`uv|\mathrm{\Phi }=0`$ and $`(0<\zeta <1)`$. Taking $`|uv=|01`$ and $`|\mathrm{\Phi }=|\mathrm{\Phi }^1`$, we compute $`E(\widehat{\rho }_+)=12\zeta `$ and $`C(\widehat{\rho }_+)=1\zeta `$, which implies $`E(\widehat{\rho }_+)=2C(\widehat{\rho }_+)1`$. These bounds, taken together, imply that a non-zero $`E`$ is a necessary condition for nonzero concurrence, but not a sufficient one. These results are consistent with similar entanglement of distillation results found by Bennett et. al. . We see that this operational measure determines the range of possible concurrence values $`C_{pos}`$ for a mixed state,

$$EC_{pos}\frac{E+1}{2}.$$
(27)
## 5 Conclusions

In conclusion, we have found that the fully entangled fraction can be used as an inclusive measure of entanglement applications in the case of two qubit states. That is, $`F>1/2`$ guarantees that a mixed state can be used to achieve, on average, “classically impossible” results in either dense coding, teleportation, entanglement swapping, or quantum cryptography (Ekert protocol); all two qubit quantum information processing applications which have been experimentally demonstrated to date. This quantity has a simple closed-form expression for general two qubit states given by the largest eigenvalue of the real part of the density matrix expressed in a “magic” Bell basis. Although it appears that the fully entangled fraction is the “best” measure of entanglement applications in the sense of being the most inclusive, we leave this question open. It could be conceived that there are other two qubit applications or definitions of fidelity which have direct experimental consequences that include the fully entangled fraction as a subset. In which case it would define a new inclusive measure of these entanglement applications which sets the threshold for accomplishing classically inconceivable quantum information tasks. This quantity may be of more practical use than entanglement for characterizing the quantum informations processing ability of more complicated systems. For example, dense coding generalized to $`d\times d`$ systems allows Alice to use a maximally entangled state $`|\mathrm{\Phi }^1`$ to encode $`d^2/2`$ bits in $`d^2`$ orthogonol states $`|\mathrm{\Phi }^i=(\widehat{1}\widehat{U}_i)|\mathrm{\Phi }^1`$ by applying $`d^2`$ local unitary operators $`\widehat{U}_i`$ (where $`i=1,\mathrm{}d^2`$). Replacing this maximally entangled state with a general density operator and defining the fidelity as in Sec. 2.1 as an average of the $`d^2`$ results gives,

$`F_{DC}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{d^2}}{\displaystyle \underset{i=1}{\overset{d^2}{}}}\mathrm{\Phi }^i|(\widehat{1}\widehat{U}_i)\widehat{\rho }(\widehat{1}\widehat{U}_i)^{}|\mathrm{\Phi }^i`$ (28)
$`=`$ $`\mathrm{\Phi }^1|\widehat{\rho }|\mathrm{\Phi }^1.`$
Maximizing this over all local unitaries (this is the same as maximizing over all maximally entangled states ) we see that the maximum fidelity of dense coding in this more general case is also given by the fully entangled fraction,

$$F_{DC}^{max}=F.$$
(29)
$`F_{DC}^{max}=1`$ when $`|\mathrm{\Phi }^1`$ is maximally entangled and $`F_{DC}^{max}=1/d`$ when $`|\mathrm{\Phi }^1`$ is pure and separable. Horodecki et. al.  also found a similar result for the maximum teleportation fidelity,

$$F_T^{max}=\frac{Fd+1}{d+1}.$$
(30)
A general analytic expression for the fully entangled fraction for the general mixed case in this system is not known, however, there are known analytic results in the case of pure states . It may also be possible to generalize the association of the fully entangled fraction with fidelities of quantum information tasks in multipartite systems.

We would like to thank Tanmoy Bhattacharya and Bill Munro for useful discussions. DME would like to thank the Los Alamos Summer School for support and this work was supported by the Los Alamos National Laboratory LDRD program.