text:
# 1 Introduction

## 1  Introduction

This letter consists of two parts. In the first part we will consider the $`(1,1)`$ supersymmetric six-dimensional gauge theories on the worldvolume of $`(p,q)`$ five branes in Type IIB string theory introduced in . These theories have been reconsidered in the context of non-commutative deformation of the NS5-brane theory  and are named OD5 theories. At low energy the theories reduce to super Yang-Mills (SYM) theories with gauge group $`SU(s)`$ where $`s`$ is the greatest common divisor of $`p`$ and $`q`$.

While the low energy interactions dominated by the gauge kinetic term cannot distinguish the different $`(p,q)`$ theories with the same low-energy gauge group, it was argued in  that the $`\theta `$ term related to the $`\pi _5`$ homotopy group of $`SU(s)`$ is an observable that distinguishes the low-energy gauge theories. One issue which is not settled is what values of $`\theta `$ are possible in the low-energy theories. The construction in  considered rational values of the $`\theta `$ parameter. A generalization to irrational $`\theta `$ was suggested in .

In order to study this question we will consider the dual string (supergravity) description. We will show that in order for the low-energy gauge theory description to be valid $`\theta `$ must be rational. Irrational values of $`\theta `$ require a strongly coupled Type IIB string description of the system at low-energy. We will discuss the phase structure and deduce some properties of these theories.

In the second part of the letter we will construct and analyse the supergravity description of NS5-branes with two electric RR field. This corresponds to a generalization of the ODp theories to six-dimensional theories with several types of light open D-branes. We will find two interesting cases. The first case corresponds to $`N`$ Type IIB NS5-branes in the presence of electric RR 2-form and 6-form potentials. The background contains (D(-1),D1,D3,D5)-branes charges, and the six-dimensional worldvolume theory contains the corresponding D-branes. In addition the background contains F-string and NS5-branes charges. This is analogous to Type IIB string theory, namely the six-dimensional theory contains all the possible branes up to dimension six. All together, all the background fields have their $`SL(2,Z)`$ counterparts. This points to an $`SL(2,Z)`$ symmetry of the six-dimensional theory, much like Type IIB string theory.

The second case corresponds to $`N`$ Type IIA NS5-branes in the presence of electric RR 3-form and 5-form potentials. The background contains (D0,D2,D4)-branes charges, and the six-dimensional worldvolume theory contains the corresponding D-branes. In addition the background contains F-string and NS5-branes charges. This is analogous to Type IIA string theory, namely the six-dimensional theory contains all the possible branes up to dimension six.

On the supergravity side these will relate and generalize other constructions in .

The letter is organized as follows. In section 2 we will analyse the $`(p,q)`$ theories from field theory and supergravity points of view and analyse the possible values of the low-energy $`\theta `$ parameter. In section 3 we will construct the supergravity description of NS5-branes with two electric RR field and study the corresponding six-dimensional theories with several types of open D-branes.

## 2 “New” Six-Dimensional Gauge Theories

### 2.1 Field Theory

We will consider the $`(1,1)`$ supersymmetric six-dimensional gauge theories on the worldvolume of $`(p,q)`$ five branes in Type IIB string theory. At low energy the theories reduce to super Yang-Mills (SYM) theories with gauge group $`SU(s)`$ where $`s`$ is the greatest common divisor of $`p`$ and $`q`$. Consider the low-energy effective action

$`S_{eff}={\displaystyle \mathrm{d}^6x\left(\frac{1}{g_{YM}^2}\mathrm{Tr}F^2+\theta _{YM}\mathrm{Tr}FFF+\mathrm{}\right)},`$ (1)
where the dots correspond to higher dimension operators as well as the supersymmetric completion. Clearly, the low energy interactions dominated by the $`F^2`$ term cannot distinguish the different $`(p,q)`$ theories with the same low-energy gauge group. However, it was argued in  that the theta term in (1), which is a consequence of $`\pi _5(SU(s))=𝐙,s>2`$, is an observable that distinguishes the low-energy gauge theories. The construction in  considered rational values of the $`\theta _{YM}`$ parameters. A generalization to irrational values of $`\theta _{YM}`$ was suggested in .

In the following we will construct a dual string (supergravity) description of these theories and analyse the possible values of $`\theta _{YM}`$. We will then use the dual description to study some properties of the theories.

### 2.2 The Dual String (Supergravity) Description

Consider a system of Type IIB NS5-branes in the presence of an electric RR 6-form potential. This branes system can be considered as a coinciding (D5,NS5) branes system. Recently, this theory has been reconsidered in the context of non-commutative deformation of the NS5-brane theory  and was called OD5 theory. We denote the worldvolume coordinates by $`x_0,\mathrm{},x_5`$.

The supergravity background of the $`q`$ NS5-branes in the presence of an electric RR 6-form reads

$`ds^2`$ $`=`$ $`h^{1/2}\left[dx_0^2+{\displaystyle \underset{i=1}{\overset{5}{}}}dx_i^2+f(dr^2+r^2d\mathrm{\Omega }_3^2)\right],`$ (2)
$`f`$ $`=`$ $`1+{\displaystyle \frac{ql_s^2}{2\mathrm{cos}\gamma r^2}},h^1=\mathrm{sin}^2\gamma f^1+\mathrm{cos}^2\gamma ,`$ (4)
$`\chi `$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{tan}\gamma }{g_s}}f^1h+\chi _0,l_s^2dA=q\left(5{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{tan}\gamma }{g_s}}f^1h\chi _0\right)ϵ_3,`$ (6)
$`e^{2\varphi }`$ $`=`$ $`g_s^2fh^2,l_s^2dB=qϵ_3.`$ (8)
Here $`\chi `$ is the RR scalar, $`A`$ is the 2-form dual to RR 6-form, and $`ϵ_3`$ is the volume 3-form of the 3-sphere. $`B_{\alpha \beta }`$ is the NS 2-form potential. Note that in comparison to the solution presented in  we added a constant $`\chi _0`$. This constant will be relevant later for the discussion of the $`\theta `$ parameter and its possible values. The Type IIB complexified coupling $`\tau `$ combines the dilaton and the RR scalar $`\tau =ie^\varphi +\chi `$.

The requirement of having $`p`$ D5-branes charge implies the condition

$$5\frac{\mathrm{tan}\gamma }{g_s}\chi _0=\frac{p}{q}.$$
(9)
Note that the background depends on four independent parameters, which we can choose to be $`(p,q,g_s,\chi _0)`$.

We will now consider the limit in which this system of $`(p,q)`$ five branes decouples from the bulk . In this limit we send $`l_s0`$ and keep

$$l_{\mathrm{eff}}^2\frac{l_s^2}{\mathrm{cos}\gamma },u\frac{r}{l_s^2},\stackrel{~}{g}l_{\mathrm{eff}}^2g_sl_s^2,$$
(10)
fixed. This requires $`g_s\mathrm{}`$.

In this limit the supergravity solution (8) reads

$`l_s^2ds^2`$ $`=`$ $`\widehat{h}^{1/2}\left[d\stackrel{~}{x}_0^2+{\displaystyle \underset{i=1}{\overset{5}{}}}d\stackrel{~}{x}_i^2+{\displaystyle \frac{q}{u^2}}(du^2+u^2d\mathrm{\Omega }_3^2)\right],`$ (11)
$`\chi `$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\stackrel{~}{g}}}a_{\mathrm{eff}}^2u^2\widehat{h}+\chi _0,l_s^2dB=qϵ_3,`$ (13)
$`l_s^2dA`$ $`=`$ $`q\left({\displaystyle \frac{5a_{\mathrm{eff}}^2u^2}{\stackrel{~}{g}}}\widehat{h}\chi _0\right)ϵ_3,e^{2\varphi }=\stackrel{~}{g}^2{\displaystyle \frac{\widehat{h}^2}{a_{\mathrm{eff}}^2u^2}},`$ (15)
where $`\widehat{h}^1=1+a_{\mathrm{eff}}^2u^2`$. we have also rescaled the worldvolume coordinates $`\stackrel{~}{x}_{0,\mathrm{},5}=\frac{1}{l_{\mathrm{eff}}}x_{0,\mathrm{},5}`$, and

$`a_{\mathrm{eff}}^2{\displaystyle \frac{2l_{\mathrm{eff}}^2}{q}}.`$ (16)
In this limit the condition (9) reads

$$\frac{5}{\stackrel{~}{g}}=\frac{p}{q}+\chi _0.$$
(17)
At the energy range $`a_{\mathrm{eff}}u1`$ the RR scalar is $`\chi =\chi _0`$, and the theta angle is $`\theta =2\pi \chi _0`$. Note, however that in the extreme IR (and extreme UV) the effective string coupling is large and we have to perform a duality transformation in order to obtain a weakly coupled description. This is the reason why we cannot identify the low energy Yang-Mills theta angle (1) with $`2\pi \chi _0`$. Here, the question of what values of theta angles are possible in the low energy SYM theory is formulated as what values of $`\chi `$ are possible in a weakly coupled gauge field theory description at small $`u`$. To answer this question we will have to discuss the phase structure of the theories and in particular the regions of validity of the different descriptions.

The curvature of the metric (15) reads

$$l_s^2=\frac{6}{q}\frac{12a_{\mathrm{eff}}^2u^2}{(1+a_{\mathrm{eff}}^2u^2)^{3/2}},$$
(18)
which is small for a large number of NS5-branes $`q`$.

Consider the energy regime $`a_{\mathrm{eff}}u1`$. The background (15) simplifies

$`l_s^2ds^2`$ $`=`$ $`\left[d\stackrel{~}{x}_0^2+{\displaystyle \underset{i=1}{\overset{5}{}}}d\stackrel{~}{x}_i^2+{\displaystyle \frac{q}{u^2}}(du^2+u^2d\mathrm{\Omega }_3^2)\right],`$ (19)
$`\chi `$ $`=`$ $`\chi _0,l_s^2dA=q\chi _0ϵ_3,`$ (21)
$`e^\varphi `$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\stackrel{~}{g}}{a_{\mathrm{eff}}u}},l_s^2dB=qϵ_3.`$ (23)
In order for the supergravity description (23) to be valid we require the effective string coupling $`e^\varphi 1`$. This condition is satisfied when $`a_{\mathrm{eff}}u\stackrel{~}{g}`$, which in this energy range implies that $`\stackrel{~}{g}1`$. This condition is not satisfied, in particular, in the extreme IR regime where we expect a perturbative SYM field theory description of the system. Since the effective string coupling is large, we have to find an appropriate weakly coupled dual description. In our case, an S-duality transformation $`\tau \frac{1}{\tau }`$ does not make the effective string coupling small because of the presence of the RR scalar $`\chi =\chi _0`$.

We distinguish two cases. In the first case $`\chi _0`$ is rational and in the second $`\chi _0`$ is irrational. Let us start with the first case. We can make the effective string coupling small by the use of a more general $`SL(2,Z)`$ transformation

$$\tau \frac{a\tau +b}{c\tau +d},BdBcA,AbB+aA$$
(24)
where $`adbc=1`$ and $`c\chi _0+d=0`$. The last requirement can be satisfied since $`\chi _0`$ is rational. Note that with this transformation the NS 2-form potential is mapped to zero. Thus, the five branes charges are mapped $`(p,q)(s,0)`$ where $`s`$ is the greatest common divisor of $`p`$ and $`q`$ 111More precisely, $`s=\frac{q}{c}`$ which is the greatest common divisor of $`p`$ and $`q`$ upon comparing the $`\theta `$ angles in IR and UV., and the RR scalar is mapped to the rational number $`\chi =\frac{a}{c}`$.

Under this $`SL(2,Z)`$ transformation we have

$`g_s^{}={\displaystyle \frac{c^2}{g_s}},l_{}^{}{}_{s}{}^{2}={\displaystyle \frac{g_sl_s^2}{c}},`$ (25)
and therefore

$`\stackrel{~}{g}^{}={\displaystyle \frac{c^2}{\stackrel{~}{g}}},l_{\mathrm{eff}}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}={\displaystyle \frac{\stackrel{~}{g}l_{\mathrm{eff}}^2}{c}}.`$ (26)
The dilaton maps to

$$e^{2\varphi ^{}}=\frac{\stackrel{~}{g}^3l_{\mathrm{eff}}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}\stackrel{~}{u}^2}{s}.$$
(27)
The metric and the dilaton take the familiar form of the D5-branes background

$`ds^2`$ $`=`$ $`l_s^2\left({\displaystyle \frac{u}{(g_{YM}^2s)^{1/2}}}(dx_0^2+{\displaystyle \underset{i=1}{\overset{5}{}}}dx_i^2)+{\displaystyle \frac{(g_{YM}^2s)^{1/2}}{u}}(du^2+u^2d\mathrm{\Omega }_3^2)\right),`$
$`e^\varphi ^{}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{(g_{YM}^2su^2)^{1/2}}{s}},`$ (28)
where

$`g_{YM}^2\stackrel{~}{g}^3l_{\mathrm{eff}}^{}{}_{}{}^{2},`$ (29)
and we have rescaled $`\stackrel{~}{u}\frac{u}{c}`$. The coordinates $`x_i`$ are the same as the ones in (8).

Defining the dimensionless effective Yang-Mills coupling by $`g_{\mathrm{eff}}^2g_{YM}^2su^2`$, we recast the curvature and dilaton in the form

$`l_s^2`$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{g_{\mathrm{eff}}}},`$
$`e^\varphi ^{}`$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{g_{\mathrm{eff}}}{s}}.`$ (30)
When $`g_{\mathrm{eff}}1`$ we have a good description of the system as a perturbative $`SU(s)`$ SYM theory with a rational $`\theta _{YM}`$ term. This is valid at low energies $`u\frac{1}{(g_{YM}^2s)^{1/2}}`$.

Consider now the cases when $`\chi _0`$ is irrational. Since the equation $`c\chi _0+d=0`$ is not satisfied for integers $`c`$ and $`d`$, we cannot use $`SL(2,Z)`$ transformations in order to find a background with a small dilaton 222Since at the supergravity level the symmetry group is $`SL(2,R)`$, one could try to satisfy the condition $`c\chi _0+d=0`$ by taking non-integer $`c,d`$. However, with such a transformation we will end up with non-integer D5-branes charge.. Thus, we must remain at low-energy with a description where the effective string coupling is large and the curvature small (for large $`q`$). In particular, in this framework we do not have at low-energy a perturbative $`SU(s)`$ SYM theory with irrational $`\theta _{YM}`$ term.

Let us turn to the UV regime $`a_{\mathrm{eff}}u1`$. Here the effects of nonzero RR fields are important. Again, in order for the supergravity description to be valid we require $`e^\varphi 1`$. This condition is satisfied when $`a_{\mathrm{eff}}u\stackrel{~}{g}^1`$, which in this energy range implies that $`\stackrel{~}{g}1`$. As before, when this condition is not satisfied we would like to make the effective string coupling small by the use of an $`SL(2,Z)`$ transformation.

In this limit the RR scalar reads

$$\chi =\frac{1}{5}\frac{p}{q}+\frac{6}{5}\chi _0.$$
(31)
If $`\chi _0`$ is rational, we can make the effective string coupling small by applying the same $`SL(2,Z)`$ transformation used in the IR regime. With this transformation, the condition $`c\chi +d=0`$ leads to $`cpdq=0`$, or $`p=sd`$. The NS 2-form potential is mapped to zero while the RR fields and dilaton map to

$$\chi ^{}=\frac{a}{c},l_{}^{}{}_{s}{}^{2}dA^{}=sϵ_3,e^{2\varphi ^{}}=\frac{s\stackrel{~}{g}^{}}{(l_{\mathrm{eff}}^{}u)^2}.$$
(32)
The metric reads

$$ds^2=\left[dx_0^2+\underset{i=1}{\overset{5}{}}dx_i^2+\frac{R^2}{u^2}(du^2+u^2d\mathrm{\Omega }_3^2)\right],$$
(33)
where $`R^2=s\stackrel{~}{g}^{}l_{\mathrm{eff}}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}`$.

Consider now a graviton scattering in the background (32),(33). Let the graviton be polarized along the worldvolume of the five branes $`\mathrm{\Psi }=e^{i\omega t}\psi (u)`$ 333This analysis is similar to that done for NS5-branes in the presence of RR 2-form or 3-form .. $`\psi (u)`$ satisfies the differential equation

$$\frac{^2\psi }{u^2}+\frac{3}{u}\frac{\psi }{u}+\frac{\omega ^2R^2}{u^2}\psi =0.$$
(34)
The solutions to equation (34) take the form $`u^\alpha `$, where

$$\alpha =1\pm \sqrt{1\omega ^2R^2}.$$
(35)
When $`\omega R>1`$, $`\alpha `$ becomes imaginary and we get a wave-like solution. This means that there is a nonzero absorption cross section (in the decoupling limit) for a graviton scattered on the five branes with the energy $`E>\frac{1}{R}`$.

We can recast equation (34) as

$$\frac{^2}{u^2}g(u)+v(u)g(u)=0,$$
(36)
where $`g(u)=u^{3/2}\psi (u)`$ and

$$V(u)=(\frac{3}{4}\omega ^2R^2)\frac{1}{u^2}.$$
(37)
The shape of the potential (37) changes at $`\omega R=\frac{\sqrt{3}}{2}`$.

As in , here the theory has a mass gap

$$M_{\mathrm{gap}}\frac{1}{(s\stackrel{~}{g}^{}l_{\mathrm{eff}}^{}{}_{}{}^{2})^{1/2}}.$$
(38)
In comparison with the ordinary NS5-branes  where we have $`M_{\mathrm{gap}}1/\sqrt{sl_s^2}`$ which corresponds to a string excitation, here the mass gap is of the order of a the D1-branes tension. Note that this is also the case for D5-branes in the presence of a rank four B field .

## 3 NS5-branes with two electric RR-fields

The theories of Type II NS5-branes in the presence of an electric RR $`(p+1)`$-form (ODp) are six dimensional theories with open Dp-branes. The supergravity description of these has been recently considered in . The background of NS5-branes in the presence of an electric RR $`(p+1)`$-form has also a magnetic RR $`(5p)`$-form. In this section we will generalize this and study Type II NS5-branes in the presence of two electric RR fields, which corresponds to six-dimensional theories with several types of open D-branes. This can be done, for instance, by starting with the Type IIB background of D5-branes in the presence of a rank four B field and using various $`T,S`$ dualities 444Starting with the Type IIB background of D5-branes in the presence of a rank six B field does not lead to new solutions.. There are four classes of solutions that we get:

(A) Two electric RR $`(p+1)`$-forms potentials, $`p=1,2,3,4`$.

(B) Electric RR $`(p+1)`$ and $`(p+3)`$-forms, $`p=0,1,2,3`$, with a magnetic B field.

(C) Electric RR $`(p+1)`$ and $`(5p)`$-forms, $`p=0,1,2`$.

(D) Electric RR $`(p+1)`$ and $`(7p)`$-forms, $`p=1,2,3`$, with an electric B field.

Note that for all these backgrounds, for each $`q`$-form potential there is also a $`(6q)`$-form potential. After taking the decoupling limit, the backgrounds $`(A),(B),(C)`$ are dual to theories which are already known. Cases (A) and (B) correspond to the ODp theories (with extra fields). Case (C) corresponds to the theory of NS5-branes in the presence of a light-like RR field . Case (D) is new and it is the aim of this section to analyse it.

The supergravity background of $`N`$ NS5-branes in the presence of electric RR $`(p+1)`$ and $`(7p)`$-forms, $`p=1,2,3`$, reads 555The supergravity solution when $`p=1`$ has already been constructed in .

$`ds^2=(h_1h_2)^{1/2}\left(dx_0^2+dx_1^2+h_1{\displaystyle \underset{i=2}{\overset{6p}{}}}dx_i^2+h_2{\displaystyle \underset{j=7p}{\overset{5}{}}}dx_j^2+f\left(dr^2+r^2d\mathrm{\Omega }_3^2\right)\right)`$ (39)
where the functions $`f`$ and $`h_i`$ are given by 666Note that we have changed the normalization of fields in comparison to section 2.

$`f=1+{\displaystyle \frac{Nl_s^2}{\mathrm{cos}\theta _1\mathrm{cos}\theta _2r^2}},h_i^1=\mathrm{sin}^2\theta _if^1+\mathrm{cos}^2\theta _i.`$ (40)
In addition we have RR fields $`A`$ and an electric $`B`$ field

$`A_{2\mathrm{}(6p)}^{(5p)}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{tan}\theta _1}{g_s}}f^1h_1,A_{(7p)\mathrm{}5}^{(p1)}={\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{tan}\theta _2}{g_s}}f^1h_2,`$ (41)
$`A_{01(7p)\mathrm{}5}^{(p+1)}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{sin}\theta _1\mathrm{cos}\theta _2}{g_s}}f^1h_2,A_{01\mathrm{}(6p)}^{(7p)}={\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{sin}\theta _2\mathrm{cos}\theta _1}{g_s}}f^1h_1,`$ (43)
$`B_{01}`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{sin}\theta _1\mathrm{sin}\theta _2f^1,e^{2\varphi }=g_s^2fh_1^{(p1)/2}h_2^{(p5)/2}.`$ (45)
In the decoupling limit we take $`l_s0`$ and keep

$$u\frac{r}{l_s},b_i\frac{l_s}{\mathrm{cos}\theta _i},g_sl_s\stackrel{~}{g}(b_1b_2)^{1/2},$$
(46)
fixed. In this limit the metric (39) reads

$`l_s^2ds^2=(\widehat{h}_1\widehat{h}_2)^{1/2}\left(d\stackrel{~}{x}_0^2+d\stackrel{~}{x}_1^2+\widehat{h}_1{\displaystyle \underset{i=2}{\overset{6p}{}}}d\stackrel{~}{x}_i^2+\widehat{h}_2{\displaystyle \underset{j=7p}{\overset{5}{}}}d\stackrel{~}{x}_j^2+{\displaystyle \frac{N}{u^2}}\left(du^2+u^2d\mathrm{\Omega }_3^2\right)\right),`$ (47)
and the fields (45) are

$`A_{2\mathrm{}(6p)}^{(5p)}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{l_s^{(5p)}}{\stackrel{~}{g}}}({\displaystyle \frac{b_1}{b_2}})^{(p4)/2}a_1^2u^2\widehat{h}_1,A_{(7p)\mathrm{}5}^{(p1)}={\displaystyle \frac{l_s^{p1}}{\stackrel{~}{g}}}({\displaystyle \frac{b_1}{b_2}})^{(p2)/2}a_2^2u^2\widehat{h}_2,`$ (48)
$`A_{01(7p)\mathrm{}5}^{(p+1)}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{l_s^{(p+1)}}{\stackrel{~}{g}}}({\displaystyle \frac{b_1}{b_2}})^{p/2}a_2^2u^2\widehat{h}_2,A_{01\mathrm{}(6p)}^{(7p)}={\displaystyle \frac{l_s^{(7p)}}{\stackrel{~}{g}}}({\displaystyle \frac{b_1}{b_2}})^{(p6)/2}a_1^2u^2\widehat{h}_1,`$ (50)
$`e^{2\varphi }`$ $`=`$ $`\stackrel{~}{g}^2{\displaystyle \frac{(b_1/b_2)^{3p}}{a_1a_2u^2}}\widehat{h}_1^{(p1)/2}\widehat{h}_2^{(p5)/2},B_{01}=l_s^2a_1a_2u^2.`$ (52)
Here $`a_1=\frac{b_1}{Nb_2},a_2=\frac{b_2}{Nb_1},\widehat{h}_i^1=1+a_i^2u^2`$, and we have rescaled the coordinates

$$\stackrel{~}{x}_{0,1}=\frac{1}{(b_1b_2)^{1/2}}x_{0,1},\stackrel{~}{x}_{2,\mathrm{},(6p)}=\frac{b_1^{1/2}}{b_2^{1/2}l_s}x_{2,\mathrm{},(6p)},\stackrel{~}{x}_{(7p),\mathrm{},5}=\frac{b_2^{1/2}}{b_1^{1/2}l_s}x_{(7p),\mathrm{},5}.$$
(53)
In the following we will consider the different cases $`p=1,2,3`$.

$`p=1`$

This case corresponds to $`N`$ Type IIB NS5-branes in the presence of electric RR 2-form and 6-form potential. The background contains (D(-1),D1,D3,D5)-branes charges, and the six-dimensional worldvolume theory contains the corresponding D-branes. In addition the background contains F-string and NS5-branes charges. This is analogous to Type IIB string theory, namely the six-dimensional theory contains all the possible branes up to dimension six. All together, all the background fields have their $`SL(2,Z)`$ counterparts. This points to an $`SL(2,Z)`$ symmetry of the six-dimensional theory, much like Type IIB string theory.

Such an $`((F,D1),(NS5,D5))`$ system has been also considered in . If we denote the F-string, D1-branes, NS5-branes and D5-branes charges by the integers $`N^{},M^{},N,M`$ respectively, there is a relation

$$(N,M)=s(c,d),(N^{},M^{})=s^{}(d,c),$$
(54)
where the $`(c,d)`$ and $`(s,s^{})`$ pairs are relatively prime.

Consider the supergravity background (47), (52). The dimensionless deformation parameters are of the form $`a_iu,i=1,2`$. Assume for simplicity that $`a_1=a_2=a_{eff}`$. The supergravity background reads

$`l_s^2ds^2`$ $`=`$ $`(1+a_{\mathrm{eff}}^2u^2)\left[d\stackrel{~}{x}_0^2+d\stackrel{~}{x}_1^2+{\displaystyle \frac{_{i=1}^5d\stackrel{~}{x}_i^2}{1+a_{\mathrm{eff}}^2u^2}}+{\displaystyle \frac{N}{u^2}}\left(du^2+u^2d\mathrm{\Omega }_3^2\right)\right]`$ (55)
$`A_{2345}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{l_s^4}{\stackrel{~}{g}}}A,\chi ={\displaystyle \frac{1}{\stackrel{~}{g}}}A,`$ (57)
$`A_{01}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{l_s^2}{\stackrel{~}{g}}}A,A_{012345}={\displaystyle \frac{l_s^6}{\stackrel{~}{g}}}A,`$ (59)
$`B_{01}`$ $`=`$ $`l_s^2a_{\mathrm{eff}}^2u^2,e^{2\varphi }=\stackrel{~}{g}^2a_{\mathrm{eff}}^2u^2A^2`$ (61)
where

$`A=a_{\mathrm{eff}}^2u^2/(1+a_{\mathrm{eff}}^2u^2).`$ (62)
Similarly to the OD5 theory considered in the previous section, the background contains a RR scalar $`\chi `$. As done there, we can add to $`\chi `$ a constant $`\chi _0`$, which will also modify the RR 2-form and 6-form. Note also that the dilaton in (61) is exactly the same as that of the OD5 theory, and is large in the IR and UV regimes. Again due to the RR scalar, we have to make use of the $`SL(2,Z)`$ symmetry in order to pass to a weakly coupled dual description.

In the IR, the theory is similar to the OD5. We can neglect the RR potentials. However, the RR scalar $`\chi =\chi _0`$ implies a specific form of the $`SL(2,Z)`$ symmetry and the analysis is identical to that performed in the previous section leading to the same conclusions regarding the low-energy $`\theta `$ parameter.

In the UV regime the theory differs from the OD5 theory. Now we have other RR fields as well as an electric B field. The dilaton is large. Since the RR scalar is rational we can use the $`SL(2,Z)`$ symmetry to map the solution to a weakly coupled one, with RR 6-form charge as well as an electric B field. This structure is very reminiscent of the NCOS theory, now in six-dimensions. Note that the most general background depends on five independent parameters, which we can choose to be $`(M,N,g_s,\chi _0,n)`$ where $`n`$ is the D3-branes charge.

Finally, we note that the conjecture of the self-duality of OD1 theory  is a special case of the $`SL(2,Z)`$ symmetry of this theory in the energy range $`a_1u1`$.

$`p=2`$

This case corresponds to $`N`$ Type IIA NS5-branes in the presence of electric RR 3-form and 5-form potentials. The background contains (D0,D2,D4)-branes charges, and the six-dimensional worldvolume theory contains the corresponding D-branes. In addition the background contains F-string and NS5-branes charges. This is analogous to Type IIA string theory, namely the six-dimensional theory contains all the possible branes up to dimension six.

Consider the supergravity background (47), (52). The dimensionless deformation parameters are of the form $`a_iu,i,j=1,2`$. Assume for simplicity that $`a_1=a_2=a_{eff}`$. The supergravity background reads

$`l_s^2ds^2`$ $`=`$ $`(1+a_{\mathrm{eff}}^2u^2)\left[d\stackrel{~}{x}_0^2+d\stackrel{~}{x}_1^2+{\displaystyle \frac{_{i=1}^5d\stackrel{~}{x}_i^2}{1+a_{\mathrm{eff}}^2u^2}}+{\displaystyle \frac{N}{u^2}}\left(du^2+u^2d\mathrm{\Omega }_3^2\right)\right],`$ (63)
$`A_{234}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{l_s^3}{\stackrel{~}{g}}}A,A_5={\displaystyle \frac{l_s}{\stackrel{~}{g}}}A,`$ (65)
$`A_{015}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{l_s^3}{\stackrel{~}{g}}}A,A_{01234}={\displaystyle \frac{l_s^5}{\stackrel{~}{g}}}A,`$ (67)
$`B_{01}`$ $`=`$ $`l_s^2a_{\mathrm{eff}}^2u^2,e^{2\varphi }=\stackrel{~}{g}^2a_{\mathrm{eff}}^2u^2A^2,`$ (69)
where $`A`$ is given by (62).

Apart from the the RR 3-form potentials, this system is the OD4 theory studied in  and from the supergravity point of view in . NS5-branes with one type of RR field on their worldvolume have been also considered in  and from the supergravity point of view in .

In the IR and UV regimes the dilaton is large and the good description is given by an eleven-dimensional supergravity background. Consider the UV regime. The eleven-dimensional supergravity background

$`l_p^2ds^2`$ $`=`$ $`\widehat{h}^{1/2}({\displaystyle \frac{u^{2/3}}{N^{1/3}(b_1^3b_2)^{1/2}}}(dx_0^2+dx_1^2+\widehat{h}_1d\stackrel{~}{x}_{2,3,4}^2+\widehat{h}_2d\stackrel{~}{x}_5^2`$ (70)
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{N^{2/3}}{b_2^2u^{4/3}}}\widehat{h}_2^1(dx_6+a_2^2u^2\widehat{h}_2d\stackrel{~}{x}_5)^2+{\displaystyle \frac{N^{2/3}b_2}{Ru^{4/3}}}(du^2+u^2d\mathrm{\Omega }_3^2)),`$
$`C_{234}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{l_p^3}{b_1^3}}a_1^2u^2\widehat{h}_1,C_{015}={\displaystyle \frac{l_p^3}{b_2^3}}a_2^2u^2\widehat{h}_2,`$ (72)
$`C_{016}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{l_p^3}{(b_1b_2)^{3/2}}}a_1a_2u^2,C_{012346}={\displaystyle \frac{l_p^6}{b_1^6}}a_1^2u^2\widehat{h}_1,`$ (74)
where $`\widehat{h}_i^1=1+a_i^2u^2`$. The rescaled coordinates are defined as

$$\stackrel{~}{x}_{2,3,4}=\frac{b_1^{3/2}}{l_p^{3/2}}x_{2,3,4},\stackrel{~}{x}_5=\frac{b_2^{3/2}}{l_p^{3/2}}x_5.$$
(75)
This background can be considered from another point of view. One can start with M5-branes with worldvolume coordinates $`x_0,\mathrm{},x_5`$ and smear in the direction $`x_6`$. One then rotates in $`x_5,x_6`$ plane. With the addition of the $`C`$ fields one has

$`ds^2`$ $`=`$ $`h_1^{1/3}(f^{1/3}(dx_0^2+dx_1^2+h_1dx_{2,3,4}^2+h_2dx_5^2)+f^{2/3}h_2^1(dx_6+Adx_5)^2`$ (76)
$`+f^{2/3}(dr^2+r^2d\mathrm{\Omega }_3^2)),`$
$`C_{234}`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{tan}\theta _1f^1h_1,C_{015}=\mathrm{sin}\theta _1\mathrm{cos}\theta _2f^1h_2,`$ (78)
$`C_{016}`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{sin}\theta _1\mathrm{sin}\theta _2f^1,C_{012346}=\mathrm{sin}\theta _2\mathrm{cos}\theta _1f^1h_1,`$ (80)
$`A`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{tan}\theta _2f^1h_2,f=1+{\displaystyle \frac{Nl_p^3}{\mathrm{cos}\theta _1\mathrm{cos}\theta _2Rr^2}},`$ (82)
where $`R`$ is the radius of $`x_6`$, and $`h_i^1=\mathrm{sin}^2\theta _if^1+\mathrm{cos}^2\theta _i`$. The decoupling limit is defined such that $`l_p0`$ with

$$u=\frac{R^{1/2}r}{l_p^{3/2}},b_i^{3/2}=\frac{l_p^{3/2}}{\mathrm{cos}\theta _i},$$
(83)
and $`R`$ fixed. This leads to the background (74), (75). Thus, we can think of (74) OM theory  “at an angle”.

$`p=3`$

When $`p=3`$, the supergravity background is S-dual to the background describing the NCSYN theory in (5+1)-dimensions with four non-commutative directions. The phase structure and some properties of this theory have been studied in .

Acknowledgement: We would like to thank A. Giveon and B. Kol for valuable discussions.


format: text

text:
# The Local Group

## 1. Introduction

The “Local Group” is the small group of galaxies around the Milky Way and M31. The size of the Local Group is not well known, and its galaxy census is incomplete for low-surface-brightness galaxies. Recent studies suggest that the radius of the zero-velocity surface of the Local Group is $`1.2`$ Mpc (Courteau & van den Bergh 1999) when a spherical potential is assumed. Within this radius 35 galaxies have been detected (see Grebel 2000a for a list). Since information about orbits is lacking it is unknown which ones of the more distant galaxies within and just outside of the adopted Local Group boundaries are actually bound to the Local Group. Many faint Local Group galaxies were only discovered in recent years, and searches are continuing. Hierarchical cold dark matter (CDM) models predict about 10 times more dark matter halos than the number of known Local Group satellites (e.g., Klypin et al. 1999). Compact high-velocity clouds (Braun & Burton 1999), which appear to be dark-matter-dominated with total estimated masses of a few $`10^8`$ M may be good candidates for the “missing” satellites.

The Local Group comprises galaxies with a variety of different morphological types, a range of masses, ages, and metallicities, and differing degrees of isolation. Their proximity makes these galaxies ideal targets for detailed studies of their star formation histories from their resolved stellar populations and of galaxy evolution in general. Furthermore, Local Group galaxies provide a convenient set of targets for studies of the nature of dark matter. Several Local Group reviews have appeared in the past few years, including Mateo (1998), Grebel (1997, 1999, 2000a), and the very detailed recent reviews by van den Bergh (1999, 2000). Reviews dealing with dark matter in Local Group dwarf spheroidals include Mateo (1997) and Olszewski (1998).

## 2. Local Group galaxy content and distribution

The most massive and most luminous Local Group galaxies are the two spirals Milky Way and M31 ($`10^{12}M_{}`$, M$`{}_{V}{}^{}<21`$ mag). The third, less luminous and less massive Local Group spiral M33 does not have any known companions and belongs to the M31 subsystem. About two thirds of the Local Group galaxies are found within 300 kpc of the two spirals. The majority of these close companions are dwarf spheroidal and dwarf elliptical galaxies. The ensemble of dwarf irregular galaxies, on the other hand, shows little concentration toward the two large spirals (although the two most massive Local Group irregulars, the Large and the Small Magellanic Cloud (LMC and SMC), are close neighbors of the Milky Way and interact with it as well as with each other). This correlation between morphological type and distance from massive galaxies is also known as morphological segregation and may be to some extent a consequence of evolutionary effects.

Whether a galaxy should be considered a dwarf galaxy is somewhat arbitrary, and different authors use different criteria. For the purpose of this review all galaxies with $`M_V>18`$ mag will be considered dwarf galaxies, which results in 31 dwarfs, excluding only the three spirals and the LMC. We distinguish the following basic types of dwarf galaxies in the Local Group:

* Dwarf irregulars (dIrrs) with M$`{}_{V}{}^{}>18`$ mag, $`\mu _V<23`$ mag arcsec-2, R $`<5`$ kpc, $`M_{\mathrm{H}\mathrm{i}}<10^9M_{}`$, and $`M_{tot}<10^{10}M_{}`$. DIrrs are irregular in their optical appearance, gas-rich, and show current or recent star formation. Several of the dIrrs contain globular or open clusters.
* Dwarf ellipticals (dEs) with M$`{}_{V}{}^{}>17`$ mag, $`\mu _V<21`$ mag arcsec-2, R $`<4`$ kpc, $`M_{\mathrm{H}\mathrm{i}}<10^8M_{}`$, and $`M_{tot}<10^9M_{}`$. DEs look globular-cluster-like in their visual appearance with a pronounced central concentration. All dEs are companions of M31. Two of the four dEs (M32, NGC 205) are nucleated. M32, a dE very close to M31, has a central black hole and follows the same scaling relations as large elliptical galaxies, whereas the other dEs resemble dSphs and are therefore called spheroidals by van den Bergh (1999, 2000). All dEs except for M32 contain globular clusters.
* Dwarf spheroidals (dSphs) with M$`{}_{V}{}^{}>14`$ mag, $`\mu _V>22`$ mag arcsec-2, R $`<3`$ kpc, $`M_{\mathrm{H}\mathrm{i}}<10^5M_{}`$, and $`M_{tot}10^7M_{}`$. These galaxies show very little central concentration and are dominated by old and intermediate-age stellar populations. Only three (Sgr, For, And I) contain globular clusters. With the exception of two isolated dSphs (Tuc and Cet) all known dSphs are close neighbors of M31 or the Milky Way. DSphs are gas-poor systems. Sensitive searches for H i in dSphs yielded only low upper limits, but recent studies detected extended H i clouds in the surroundings of some dSphs that may be associated with them judging from the similarity of their radial velocities (Carignan et al. 1998, Blitz & Robishaw 2000).

A few dwarf galaxies (Phe, LGS 3) are classified as “transition-type” objects and may be evolving from low-mass dIrrs to dSphs. These dIrr/dSph galaxies are found at distances of 250 kpc $`<D_{\mathrm{Spiral}}<450`$ kpc. The Local Group does not contain blue compact dwarf galaxies, dwarf spirals, or massive ellipticals.

## 3. The Local Group spirals

The Local Group spirals have the most complex and varied star formation histories of all Local Group galaxies. Different subpopulations can be distinguished by their ages, metallicities, and kinematics. The oldest populations are found in the halos and thick disk components. Extremely metal-poor (\[Fe/H\] $`<3`$ dex) halo stars are tracers of the earliest star formation events (Ryan et al. 1996), but it is difficult to derive ages for them.

The earliest significant star formation episodes in the Galactic thick disk appear to have occurred 13 Gyr ago, while the thin disk began to experience multiple bursts of star formation $`9`$ Gyr ago (Rocha-Pinto et al. 2000). The metallicity in the thin disk depends more strongly on Galactocentric radius than on age and shows a large spread at any position and age (Edvardsson et al. 1993).

While halos may have largely formed through accretion of metal-poor Searle & Zinn (1978) fragments, bulges also host metal-rich old populations (mean metallicity of the Galactic bulge: $`0.25`$ dex; Minniti et al. 1995), indicating that they experienced early and fast enrichment. M31 appears to have undergone rapid enrichment as a whole, whereas M33 shows a pronounced radial abundance gradient. The mean metallicity of M31’s halo is $`1`$ to $`1.2`$ dex, more metal-rich than the halo of the Milky Way ($`1.4`$ dex) and of M33 ($`1.6`$ dex). While M31’s bulge emits $`30`$% of the visible light of this galaxy, M33 lacks a bulge.

M31’s total number of globular clusters may be as high as $`600`$. The Milky Way contains $`160`$ globulars, and in the smaller M33 54 globulars are currently known (see Grebel 2000b for a review of star clusters in the Local Group). Main-sequence photometry of Galactic globular clusters suggests a range of ages spanning more than 3 Gyr. We lack such detailed information for M31’s and M33’s globulars, but the blue horizontal branch (HB) morphology observed in some of them may suggest similar ages as for the Milky Way globulars. On the other hand, the red HBs of M33’s globulars may indicate that star formation was delayed by a few Gyr (Sarajedini et al. 1998).

The spiral arms in all three galaxies contain numerous OB associations and young star clusters. The UV line strengths of massive OB stars suggest that the young population of M31 is comparable to that of the Milky Way, whereas M33 resembles the Large Magellanic Clouds (Bianchi, Hutchings, & Massey 1996). Present-day star-forming regions in the Milky Way range from very extended associations to compact starburst clusters such as the central cluster of NGC 3603 and the clusters Quintuplet and Arches near the Galactic center. M31’s current star-forming activity is low. The increase in cluster formation in M33 over the past 10 – 100 Myr may be correlated with gas inflow into M33’s center (Chandar, Bianchi, & Ford 1999).

Warps in the stellar and H i disks of the Milky Way and M31 may have been caused by tidal interactions with the Magellanic Clouds and M32, respectively. The Milky Way disk may also have been significantly distorted by interacting with the currently merging Sagittarius dwarf galaxy (Ibata & Razoumov 1998). M33’s stellar and H i disks are tilted with respect to each other, but no nearby companion is known that might be responsible.

## 4. Star formation histories of Local Group dwarf galaxies

The star formation histories of dwarf galaxies in the Local Group vary widely. No two galaxies are alike; not even within the same morphological type. The reasons for this diversity are not understood. It seems that both galaxy mass and environment play important roles in the evolution of these low-mass objects.

### 4.1. Methods and limitations

Star formation histories of resolved dwarf galaxies are commonly derived through photometric techniques. The most widely used method consists of sophisticated modelling of the observed color-magnitude diagrams (CMDs) through synthetic CMDs taking into account photometric errors, seeing, and crowding effects. For a recent review of procedures and techniques see Aparicio (1999). The methods are limited by the quality of the observations and by how closely theoretical evolutionary models reproduce observational features. For instance, Olsen (1999) notes that old red giant branches of evolutionary models may fit the observations poorly, which can lead to an underestimation of the contribution of the old population. Free parameters in modelling include the adopted initial mass function slope and the binary fraction.

Additional constraints can be imposed by using special types of stars as tracers of certain evolutionary phases. For instance, the presence of HB stars and RR Lyrae variables is a reliable indicator of an old population even when sufficiently deep main-sequence photometry is lacking. It is important to keep in mind that the age resolution that can be obtained is not linear and decreases strongly for older populations. Whereas young populations with short-lived, luminous massive stars can be accurately age-dated to within a few million years, the accuracy for the oldest, long-lived evolutionary phases is of the order of a few billion years. Relative ages of resolved old populations with high-quality, deep main-sequence photometry, on the other hand, can be established with a resolution of a Gyr or less through direct comparison with CMDs of Galactic globular clusters. In the following, “young” refers to populations with ages $`<1`$ Gyr, “intermediate-age” denotes the age range from 1 Gyr to 10 Gyr, and “old” stands for ages $`>10`$ Gyr.

Owing to the availability of 10-m class telescopes, spectroscopic measurements of stellar abundances are now feasible for individual supergiants and the brightest red giants in galaxies as distant as the M31 subgroup. Together with emission-line spectroscopy of H ii regions, these data help to constrain the metallicity and metallicity spread in certain evolutionary phases. Still, accurate metallicity information as a function of time is lacking for almost all galaxies.

The increasing amount of data on internal kinematics and dwarf galaxy proper motions are beginning to constrain their dynamical history. Unfortunately accurate orbital data are not yet available for almost all of the Local Group galaxies, making it difficult to evaluate the suggested impact of environmental effects and interactions discussed later.

### 4.2. Old populations

A common property of all Local Group dwarfs studied in detail is the existence of an old population, whose presence can be inferred either from HB stars and/or from photometry reaching below the oldest main-sequence turnoff. Old populations may be difficult to detect in the central portions of galaxies with significant intermediate-age or young populations, as the location of these stars in a CMD may obscure an old HB. Also, coverage of only a small field of view may be insufficient to reliably detect a sparsely populated HB (compare the findings of Gallart et al. 1999 and Held et al. 2000 for Leo I). Age dating of the oldest populations is reliably possible only where high-quality photometry well below the oldest main-sequence turnoff exists; a challenge for present-day telescopes already for galaxies at the distance of M31. Definite statements about the existence of an old population are possible only where the photometry reaches at least the HB; feasible in principle with present-day telescopes out to distances $`3`$ Mpc.

Deep main-sequence photometry based largely on Hubble Space Telescope data revealed that the ages of the oldest populations in the LMC (Holtzman et al. 1999), Sagittarius (Layden & Sarajedini 2000), Draco, Ursa Minor (Feltzing, Gilmore, & Wyse 1999), Sculptor (Monkiewicz et al. 1999), Carina (Mighell 1997), Fornax (Buonanno et al. 1998), and Leo II (Mighell & Rich 1996) are as old as the oldest Galactic globular clusters and bulge populations. Thus all of these galaxies share a common epoch of early star formation. Similarly old ages were inferred from the existence of blue HBs in Sextans (Harbeck et al. 2000), Leo I (Held et al. 2000), Phoenix (Smith, Holtzman, & Grillmair 2000), IC 1613 (Cole et al. 1999), Cetus (Tolstoy et al. 2000), And I (Da Costa et al. 1996), And II (Da Costa et al. 2000), NGC 185 (Geisler et al. 1999), NGC 147 (Han et al. 1997), Tucana (Lavery et al. 1996), M31 (Ajhar et al. 1996), potentially in M32 (Brown et al. 2000), and spectroscopically for one of NGC 6822’s globular clusters (Cohen & Blakeslee 1998). Assuming that age is the second parameter determining HB morphology the apparent lack of a blue HB in M33 globular clusters (Sarajedini et al. 1998) and in the field populations of WLM (Dolphin 2000), Leo A (Tolstoy et al. 1998), DDO 210 (Tolstoy et al. 2000) and the Small Magellanic Cloud (SMC) may be interpreted as evidence for delayed formation of the majority of the old population in these galaxies. Furthermore, the oldest globular cluster in the SMC, NGC 121, is a few Gyr younger than the oldest Galactic globulars (Shara et al. 1998) A complete lack of an old population has so far not been established in any Local Group galaxy.

### 4.3. Spatial variations of stellar populations

Not surprisingly properties such as gas and stellar content, age structure, metallicity distribution, density, and scale height vary as a function of position within a galaxy. Spatial variations in the distribution of stellar populations of different ages are found in all types of galaxies, underlining the importance of large-area coverage when trying to determine the star formation history of a galaxy.

The oldest populations turn out to be spatially most extended. Spiral galaxies in the Local Group show pronounced population differences between disk, halo, and more intricate spatially and kinematically distinct subdivisions. In massive irregulars such as the LMC spatial variations are traced by, e.g., multiple distinct regions of concurrent star formation. These regions can remain active for several 100 Myr, are found throughout the main body of these galaxies, and can migrate.

In low-mass dIrrs and several dSphs the most recent star formation events are usually centrally concentrated. A radial age gradient may be accompanied by a radial metallicity gradient, indicating that not only gas but also metals were retained over an extended period of time. Occasionally evidence for shell-like propagation of star formation from the central to adjacent regions is found. DSphs that are predominantly old tend to exhibit radial gradients in their HB morphology such that the ratio of red to blue HB stars decreases towards the outer parts of the dwarfs. If such second-parameter variations are caused by age then this would indicate star formation persisted over a longer period of time in the centers of these ancient galaxies.

### 4.4. Differences in gas content

The H i in dIrrs is generally more extended than the oldest stellar populations and shows a clumpy distribution. Gas and stars in a number of low-mass dIrrs exhibit distinct spatial distributions and different kinematic properties. Shell-like structures, central H i holes, or off-centered gas may be driven by recent star formation episodes (Young & Lo 1996; 1997a,b). H i shells, however, do not always expand, which may argue against their formation through propagating star formation (Points et al. 1999, de Blok & Walter 2000).

Ongoing gas accretion appears to be feeding the starburst in the dIrr IC 10 (Wilcots & Miller 1998). An infalling or interacting H i complex is observed in the dIrr NGC 6822 (de Blok & Walter 2000).

DEs in the Local Group contain low amounts of gas (a few $`10^5M_{}`$; Sage, Welch, & Mitchell 1998) or none (NGC 147). The apparent lack of gas in dSphs (e.g., Young 2000) continues to be hard to understand, in particular when considering that some dSphs show evidence for recent (Fornax: $`200`$ Myr, Grebel & Stetson 1999) or pronounced intermediate-age star formation episodes (e.g., Carina: 3 Gyr; Hurley-Keller, Mateo, & Nemec 1998; Leo I: 2 Gyr; Gallart et al. 1999). Gas concentrated in two extended lobes along the direction of motion of the Sculptor was detected beyond the tidal radius of this galaxy (Carignan et al. 1998). This gas may be moving inwards or away from Sculptor. Its amount is consistent with the expected mass loss from red giants, though that does not explain its location along the probable orbital direction of Sculptor. Blitz & Robishaw (2000) suggested the existence of similar gas concentrations with matching radial velocities in the surroundings of several other dSphs. Simulations by Mac Low & Ferrara (1999) suggest that total gas loss through star formation events can only occur in galaxies with masses of less than a few $`10^6`$ M. Blitz & Robishaw discuss tidal effects as the most likely agent for the displacement of the gas. However, the absence of gas in Cetus and Tucana, two isolated dSphs in the Local Group, requires a different mechanism.

### 4.5. Star formation histories

Local Group dwarf galaxies vary widely in their star formation histories, chemical enrichment, and age distribution; even within the same morphological type. Despite their individual differences, however, they tend to follow common global relations between, e.g., mean metallicity, absolute magnitude, and central surface brightness. Galaxy mass as well as external effects such as tides appear to play major roles in their evolution.

Sufficiently massive irregulars and dIrrs exhibit continuous star formation at a variable rate. They can continue to form stars over a Hubble time and undergo gradual enrichment. Galaxies such as the LMC (Holtzman et al. 1999, Olsen 1999), SMC, and WLM (Dolphin 2000) have formed stars continuously and experienced considerable chemical enrichment spanning more than 1 dex in \[Fe/H\]. Their star formation rate, on the other hand, varied and shows long periods of low activity. Interestingly, in the LMC cluster and field star formation activity show little correlation.

Low-mass dIrrs and dSphs often show continuous star formation rates with decreasing star formation rates. They typically show dominant old (or intermediate-age) populations with little or no recent activity. A similar evolution appears to have occurred in dEs. DSph companions of the Milky Way tend to have increased fractions of intermediate-age populations with increasing Galactocentric distance, indicating that external effects such as tidal or ram pressure stripping may have affected their star formation history (e.g., van den Bergh 1994). The two closest dSphs to the Milky Way (other than the currently merging Sagittarius dSph) are Draco and Ursa Minor, which are dominated by ancient populations and are also the least massive dSphs known – possibly due to the early influence of Galactic tides, though present-day positions may not reflect early Galactocentric distances, and reliable orbital information is lacking.

The Local Group dwarf galaxy to show the most extreme case of episodic star formation with Gyr-long periods of quiescence and distinct, well-defined subgiant branches is Carina (Smecker-Hane et al. 1994, Hurley-Keller et al. 1998). It is unclear what caused the interruption and subsequent onset of star formation after the long gaps. Also, the apparent lack of chemical enrichment during these star formation episodes is surprising.

### 4.6. Potential evolutionary transitions

Fornax is the second most luminous dSph galaxy in the Local Group. The young age of its youngest measurable population ($`200`$ Myr, Grebel & Stetson 1999) is astonishing considering its lack of gas. Just a few hundred Myr ago Fornax would have been classified as a dIrr. What caused Fornax to lose all of its gas after some 13 Gyr of continuous, decreasing star formation is not clear.

The presence of intermediate-age populations in some of the more distant Galactic dSphs, the possible detection of associated gas in the surroundings of several of them, indications of substantial mass loss discussed elsewhere in this paper, morphological segregation, common trends in relations between their integrated properties, and the apparent correlation between star formation histories and Galactocentric distance all seem to support the idea that low-mass dIrrs will eventually evolve into dSphs if their environment fosters this evolution. DSphs may be the natural final phase of low-mass dIrrs, and the type distinction may be artificial. The six dSph companions of M31 span a similar range in distances as the Milky Way dSphs (Grebel & Guhathakurta 1999). A study of whether their detailed star formation histories (not yet available) show a comparable correlation with distance from M31 would provide a valuable test of the suggested impact of environment.

The mass (traced by the luminosity) of a dwarf galaxy plays a major role in its evolution as indicated by the good correlation between luminosity and mean metallicity (e.g., Caldwell 1999). The observed lack of rotation in dSphs requires that its hypothesized low-mass dIrr progenitor must have gotten rid of its angular momentum, which may occur through substantial mass loss. However, this scenario does not account for the existence of isolated dSphs such as Tucana. Alternatively, the progenitor may have had very little rotation to begin with. Either way, the subsequent fading must have been low since otherwise dIrrs and dSphs would not follow such a fairly well-defined common relation. Several authors (e.g., Mateo 1998) suggested that the luminosity-metallicity relation is instead bimodal with separate loci for dIrrs and dSphs in the sense that at a given luminosity a dIrr tends to be more metal-poor than a dSph, excluding evolutionary transitions. Hunter, Hunsberger, & Roye (2000) go a step further and suggest that a number of Local Group dIrrs might have formed as ancient tidal dwarfs that lack dark matter, are essentially non-rotating, and contribute to the increased scatter in the absolute magnitude–mean metallicity relationship for $`M_B<15`$ mag.

## 5. Dark matter

Dark matter is a significant component of many Local Group galaxies. Spiral galaxies exhibit H i rotation curves that become approximately flat at large radii and that extend 2–3 times beyond the optically visible galaxy. Global mass-to-light ratios (M/L) inferred from rotation curves of spirals are typically $`10`$ M/L for the visible regions ($`13`$ M/L in disks, $`1020`$ M/L in bulges), while the dark matter in halos seems to significantly exceed these values (Longair 1998). This motivates efforts to determine the nature of the dark matter through microlensing in the Galactic halo and toward the Galactic bulge as detailed elsewhere in this volume, and through pixel microlensing of stars in the disk of M31 by dark massive objects in M31’s halo (Crotts 1992).

In gas-rich dwarfs the presence of dark matter is inferred as well from H i rotation curves. Some of the less massive dIrrs are rotationally supported only in their centers, while the majority of dSphs studied so far does not show evidence for rotation at all. Chaotic gas motions dominate in low-mass dIrrs, and the H i column density distribution is poorly correlated with the stellar distribution (Lo, Sargent, & Young 1993). In the dE NGC 205, which is tidally interacting with M31, integrated light measurements revealed that the stellar component is essentially non-rotating though the H i shows significant angular momentum (Welch, Sage, & Mitchell 1998). In gas-deficient dSphs kinematic information is based entirely on stars. Most dSphs show no rotation. Their velocity dispersions are typically $`7`$ km s-1. Assuming virial equilibrium velocity dispersions and rotation curves can be translated into virial masses. The derived total M/L ratios of Local Group dwarf galaxies present an inhomogeneous picture ranging from $`1`$ to $`80`$ (see compilation by Mateo 1998).

Compact high-velocity clouds (CHVCs) are a subset of high-velocity H i clouds with angular sizes of only about 1 degree on the sky. They show infall motion with respect to the barycenter of the Local Group. Preliminary estimates place them at distances of 0.5 to 1 Mpc in contrast to the extended nearby high-velocity-cloud complexes (Braun & Burton 1999). Their rotation curves imply high dark-to-H i ratios of 10–50 if distances of 0.7 Mpc are assumed, and masses of $`10^7`$ M (Braun & Burton 2000). CHVCs may be a significant source of dark matter and may represent pure H i/dark-matter halos prior to star formation. We are currently carrying out an optical wide-field survey to establish whether they also contain a low-luminosity, low-density stellar component, which would imply the discovery of a new, very dark type of galaxy, help to refine CHVC distances and allow detailed studies of their stellar populations.

### 5.1. Dwarf spheroidal galaxies and dark matter

Galactic dSphs are of particular interest in efforts to elucidate the nature of dark matter since they may be dark-matter-dominated and can be studied in great detail due to their proximity. From an analysis of the kinematic properties of Draco and Ursa Minor Gerhard & Spergel (1992a) exclude fermionic light particles (neutrinos) as dark matter suspects because phase-space limits would then require unreasonably large core radii and masses for these two galaxies.

The initial measurements of velocity dispersions in dSphs were criticized for including luminous AGB stars and Carbon stars, whose radial velocities may reflect atmospheric motions, and for neglecting the impact of binaries (see Olszewski 1998 for details). Subsequent studies concentrated on somewhat fainter stars along the upper RGB, carried out extensive simulations to assess the impact of binaries (Hargreaves, Gilmore, & Annan 1996; Olszewski, Pryor, & Armandroff 1996), obtained multi-epoch observations (e.g., Olszewski, Aaronson, & Hill 1995), and increased the number of red giants with measured radial velocities to more than 90 in some cases (Armandroff, Olszewski, & Pryor 1995). These studies established that the large velocity dispersions in dSphs are not due to the previously mentioned observational biases. Kleyna et al. (1999) show that the currently available measurements for the two best-studied dSphs, Draco and Ursa Minor, are not yet sufficient to distinguish between models where mass follows light (constant M/L throughout the dSph) or extended dark halo models when interpreting the velocity dispersions as high M/L ratios due to large dark matter content. Mateo (1998) and Mateo et al. (1998) argue that the relation between total M/L and $`V`$-band luminosity for dSphs can be approximated well when adopting a stellar M/L of 1.5 (similar to globular clusters) and an extended dark halo with a mass of $`210^7`$ M, suggesting fairly uniform properties for the dark halos of dSphs.

Luminosity functions (LFs) of old stellar systems can provide further constraints on the nature of dark matter. The main-sequence LFs of old field populations in the Galactic bulge (Holtzman et al. 1998), LMC and SMC (Holtzman et al. 1999), Draco (Grillmair et al. 1998), and Ursa Minor (Feltzing et al. 1999) are in excellent agreement with the solar neighborhood IMF and LFs of globular clusters that did not suffer mass segregation. Since globular clusters are not known to contain dark matter, one would expect to find differences in the LF of dark-matter-rich populations if low-mass objects down to 0.45 M were important contributors to the baryonic dark matter content. Furthermore, these studies demonstrate that the LF in objects with a wide range of M/L ratios does not differ much. The possible contribution of white dwarfs (or lack thereof) is discussed elsewhere in these proceedings.

### 5.2. Tidal effects rather than dark matter?

Instead of a smooth surface density profile that one might expect from a relaxed population, Ursa Minor shows statistically significant stellar density variations (Kleyna et al. 1998). Fornax’s four ancient globular clusters are located at distances larger than the galaxy’s core radius. Dynamical friction should have lead to orbital decay in only a few Gyr (much less time than the globular clusters’ lifetimes) and have turned Fornax into a nucleated dSph. Simulations by Oh, Lin, & Richer (2000) suggest that the best mechanism to have prevented this evolution is significant mass loss through Galactic tidal perturbation and the resulting decrease in the satellite galaxy’s gravitational potential, which may have increased the clusters’ orbital semimajor axes and efficiently counteracted the spiralling-in through dynamical friction. The detection of a possible extended population of extratidal stars around the dSph Carina might imply that this galaxy has now been reduced to a mere 1% of its initial mass (Majewski et al. 2000). If such significant tidal disruption is indeed real and widespread then the present-day stellar content of nearby dSphs cannot easily be used to derive evolutionary histories over a Hubble time. Furthermore, extended extratidal stars are not expected if the galaxy is dark-matter dominated (Moore 1996).

Additional indications in favor of the impact of galactic tides come from the structural parameters of dSphs (Irwin & Hatzidimitriou 1995), which seem to imply tidal disruption in several cases. Furthermore, substantial tidal disruption by the Milky Way is evidenced by the Magellanic Clouds and Magellanic stream, by the Sagittarius dSph, and by Galactic globular clusters (Gnedin & Ostriker 1997; Grillmair et al. 1995; Leon, Meylan, & Combes 2000). Tracer features include gaseous and stellar tidal tails (Putman et al. 1998; Majewski et al. 1999; Odenkirchen et al. 2000). The conversion of velocity dispersions into M/L ratios and dark matter fractions assumes virial equilibrium, a condition that is violated in the case of severe tidal disruption.

Tidal heating due to resonant orbital coupling between the time-dependent Galactic gravitational field and the internal oscillation time scales of dSphs (Kuhn & Miller 1989; Kuhn 1993; Kuhn, Smith, & Hawley 1996) may inflate the dSphs’ velocity dispersions, but see Pryor (1996) for arguments against the efficiency of this mechanism.

As shown by Piatek & Pryor (1995) tides can, but need not inflate the global M/L/ratio to values. Indeed, in a galaxy suffering tidal disruption the velocity dispersion can be sustained at its virial equilibrium value, and the central density is maintained even after substantial mass loss (Oh, Lin, & Aarseth 1995). Pryor (1996) noted that a velocity gradient across a galaxy that is larger than the velocity dispersion is the clearest signature of tidal disruption, but such a gradient is not obvious in the Galactic dSphs.

Kroupa (1997) and Klessen & Kroupa (1998) proposed that stellar tidal tails may look like dSphs when seen along the line of sight, an orientation that follows naturally from their N-body simulations. The ordered motions in the tidal remnants would appear as increased velocity dispersion since they occur along the line of sight. These models can roughly reproduce the observed correlations between central surface brightness, absolute magnitude, and M/L. The predicted line-of-sight extension of the dSphs can be tested, in principle, through accurate measurements of the apparent width of their HBs. The predicted high orbital eccentricity, a consequence of the required radial orbits in the model, could be checked through accurate proper motion measurements with astrometric satellite missions such as SIM and GAIA. The tidal remnants may be leftovers from earlier mergers as suggested by the observation that the Galactic dSph galaxies appear to be located near at least two polar planes or great circles (the Magellanic Stream and the Fornax–Leo–Sculptor Stream; e.g., Kunkel & Demers 1996; Kunkel 1979; Lynden-Bell 1982; Majewski 1994). Such tidal remnants would not likely contain dark matter. The observed ages and abundances of galaxies potentially associated with “streams” constrain the time at which the break-up of a more massive parent could have occurred. This event must have happened very early on when the parent had not yet experienced significant enrichment. Siegel & Majewski (2000) suggest that galaxies potentially belonging to a stream may have originated from a common $`2.3`$ dex progenitor and subsequently followed their own evolution.

The impact of Galactic tides remains a valid alternative to large amounts of dark matter in nearby dSphs. The determination of velocity dispersions of distant or even isolated dSphs, which are unlikely to be subject to tidal effects, is an important test of whether high M/L ratios in dSphs are largely caused by environmental effects (see, e.g., the discussion in Bellazzini, Fusi Pecci, & Ferraro 1996). Stellar velocity dispersions indicative of high M/L were found in the most distant ($`270`$ kpc) potential Milky Way dSph companion Leo I (Mateo et al. 1998) and in the outlying ($`280`$ kpc) M31 transition-type satellite LGS 3 (Cook et al. 1999), but measurements of truly isolated Local Group dSphs such as Tucana and Cetus are still lacking.

### 5.3. Modified Newtonian dynamics

Modified Newtonian dynamics (MOND, Milgrom 1983a,b), which alters Newton’s second law at low accelerations by introducing a multiplicative acceleration constant of $`1.210^8`$ cm s-1, results in M/L ratios that do not require the presence of dark matter. While many attempts have been made to disprove MOND (e.g., Gerhard & Spergel 1992b), none of the presently existing measurements has been able to unambiguously refute MOND for either disk galaxies (van den Bosch & Dalcanton 2000) or dwarfs (e.g, Milgrom 1994; 1995; Côté et al. 1999). MOND remains a possible alternative to dark matter.

### 5.4. Implications for microlensing

Microlensing surveys are concentrating on the Galactic bulge, the Galactic halo through monitoring of sight lines toward the Magellanic Clouds, and on M31 through pixel lensing. All of these surveys concentrate on fields with high-density, luminous background populations. Results and constraints on dark matter from these surveys are discussed elsewhere in this volume.

The remaining Local Group dwarf galaxies are less well suited for classical microlensing studies. Advantages of using other dwarfs are that one can probe additional lines of sight and can take advantage of the large optical depth to microlensing since the sources are outside of the Milky Way halo. Also, in nearby dSphs crowding won’t be much of a problem. However, the efficiency of such studies would be drastically reduced as compared to the ongoing studies since the targets are faint and stellar densities are low. This requires not only longer exposure times or larger telescopes but also implies much longer time scales before a significant number of events can be observed.

As discussed earlier the high velocity dispersions in low-mass dwarfs may arise from large amounts of dark matter. This increases the possibility that one may observe self-lensing when monitoring dwarfs rather than events in the Galactic halo, an effect that is negligible when turning to distant Galactic globular clusters instead (Gyuk & Holder 1998). As always, variable stars may act as contaminants. Future large survey telescopes such as the proposed Dark Matter Telescope (Tyson, Wittman, & Angel 2000) can provide routinely deep exposures of nearby Local Group dwarf galaxies once per night as a regular by-product of their search for cosmological weak lensing.

## 6. Summary

The Local Group, an ensemble of 35 galaxies most of which are dwarf companions of either M31 or the Milky Way, contains galaxies with a wide variety of masses, luminosities, star formation histories, and chemical and kinematic properties. No two galaxies in the Local Group experienced the same star formation history even within the same morphological type. Star formation episodes vary in length and times ranging from continuous star formation with variable star formation rates to gradually declining rates and episodic star formation, accompanied by either gradual chemical enrichment or almost no enrichment at all. Old populations are a common property of all Local Group galaxies studied in detail so far, though not all appear to share a common epoch of the earliest measurable star formation. Spatial variations in ages and abundances are observed in most Local Group galaxies ranging from widely scattered active regions in high-mass galaxies to centrally concentrated younger star formation episodes in low-mass dwarfs. Both galaxy mass and galaxy environment appear to have a major impact on galaxy evolution. Interactions such as ram pressure and tidal stripping seem to influence the evolution of less massive galaxies, contributing to the observed morphological segregation. Rotation curves and stellar velocity dispersions indicate the presence of dark matter in the majority of Local Group galaxies, although alternative explanations cannot be ruled out. The properties of the stellar populations in these galaxies as well as orbital and kinematic information can impose constraints on the nature and ubiquity of dark matter. Owing to faintness, low stellar density and hence low event probability as well as likeliness of self-lensing, Local Group dwarf galaxies other than the Magellanic Clouds are poorly suited for classical microlensing surveys but might become of interest for future large telescopes that routinely monitor a major fraction of the sky on a nightly basis.

#### Acknowledgments.

This work was supported by NASA through grant HF-01108.01-98A from the Space Telescope Science Institute, which is operated by the Association of Universities for Research in Astronomy, Inc., under NASA contract NAS5-26555. I gratefully acknowledge support from the organizers who covered my local expenses. Last but not least I like to thank the editors for their patience while this manuscript was finished.

## References

Ajhar, E.A., Grillmair, C.J., Lauer, T.R., Baum, W.A., Faber, S.M., Holtzman, J.A., Lynds, C.R., & O’Neil, E.J. 1996, AJ, 111, 1110

Armandroff, T.E., Olszewski, E.W., & Pryor, C. 1995, AJ, 110, 2131

Aparicio, A. 1999, in IAU Symp. 192, The Stellar Content of the Local Group, ed. P. Whitelock & R. Cannon (Provo: ASP), 304

Bellazzini, M., Fusi Pecci, F., & Ferraro, F.R. 1996, MNRAS, 278, 947

Bianchi, L., Hutchings, J.B., & Massey, P. 1996, AJ, 111, 2303

Blitz, L., & Robishaw, T. 2000, ApJ, submitted (astro-ph/0001142)

Braun, R., & Burton, W.B. 1999, A&A, 341, 437

Braun, R., & Burton, W.B. 2000, A&A, 354, 853

Brown, T.M., Bowers, C.W., Kimble, R.A., & Sweigart, A.V. 2000, ApJ, 532, 308

Buonanno, R., Corsi, C.E., Zinn, R., Fusi Pecci, F., Hardy, E., & Suntzeff, N.B. 1998, ApJ, 501, L33

Caldwell, N. 1999, AJ, 118, 1230

Carignan, C., Beaulieu, S., Côté, S., Demers, S., & Mateo, M. 1998, AJ, 116, 1690

Chandar, R., Bianchi, L., & Ford, H.C. 1999, ApJ, 517, 668

Cohen, J.G., & Blakeslee, J.P. 1998, AJ, 115, 2356

Cole, A.A., Tolstoy, E., Gallagher, J.S., Hoessel, J.G., Mould, J.R., Holtzman, J.A., Saha, A., Ballester, G.E., Burrows, C.J., Clarke, J.T., Crisp, D., Griffiths, R.E., Grillmair, C.J., Hester, J.J., Krist, J.E., Meadows, V., Scowen, P., Stapelfeldt, K.R., Trauger, J.T., Watson, A.M., & Westphal, J.R. 1999, AJ, 118, 1657

Cook, K.H., Mateo, M., Olszewski, E.W., Vogt, S.S., Stubbs, C.,& Diercks, A. 1999, PASP, 111, 306

Côté, P., Mateo, M., Olszewski, E.W., & Cook, K.H. 1999, ApJ, 526, 147

Courteau, S., & van den Bergh, S. 1999, AJ, 118, 337

Crotts, A.P.S. 1992, ApJ, 399, L43

Da Costa, G.S., Armandroff, T.E., Caldwell, N., & Seitzer, P. 1996, AJ, 112, 2576

Da Costa, G.S., Armandroff, T.E., Caldwell, N., & Seitzer, P. 2000, AJ, 119, 705

de Blok, W.J.G., & Walter, F. 2000, ApJ, 537, L95

Dolphin, A.E. 2000, ApJ, 531, 804

Edvardsson, B., Andersen, J., Gustafsson, B., Lambert, D.L., Nissen, P.E., & Tomkin, J. 1993, A&A, 275, 101

Feltzing, S., Gilmore, G., & Wyse, R.F.G. 1999, ApJ, 516, L17

Gallart, C., Freedman, W.L., Aparicio, A., Bertelli, G., & Chiosi, C. 1999, AJ, 118, 2245

Geisler, D., Armandroff, T.E., Da Costa, G., Lee, M.G., & Sarajedini, A. 1998, in IAU Symp. 192, The Stellar Content of the Local Group, ed. P. Whitelock & R. Cannon (Provo: ASP), 231

Gerhard, O.E., & Spergel, D.N. 1992a, ApJ, 389, L9

Gerhard, O.E., & Spergel, D.N. 1992b, ApJ, 397, 38

Gnedin, O.Y., & Ostriker, J.P. 1997, ApJ, 474, 223

Grebel, E.K. 1997, Rev. in Mod. Astron., 10, 29

Grebel, E.K. 1999, in IAU Symp. 192, The Stellar Content of the Local Group, ed. P. Whitelock & R. Cannon (Provo: ASP), 17

Grebel, E.K. 2000a, in 33rd ESLAB Symp., Star Formation from the Small to the Large Scale, ed. F.Favata, A.A. Kaas, & C. Wilson (Noordwijk: ESA), ESA SP-445, in press (astro-ph/0005296)

Grebel, E.K. 2000b, in Observatoire de Strasbourg Workshop, Massive Stellar Clusters, ed. A. Lançon & C. Boily (Provo: ASP), in press (astro-ph/9912529)

Grebel, E.K., & Guhathakurta, P. 1999, ApJ, 511, L101

Grebel, E.K., & Stetson, P.B. 1999, in IAU Symp. 192, The Stellar Content of the Local Group, ed. P. Whitelock & R. Cannon (Provo: ASP), 165

Grillmair, C.J., Freeman, K.C., Irwin, M., & Quinn, P.J. 1995, AJ, 109, 2553

Grillmair, C.J., Mould, J.R., Holtzman, J.A., Worthey, G., Ballester, G.E., Clarke, J.T., Crisp, D., Evans, R.W., Gallagher, J.S., & Burrows, C.J. 1998, AJ, 115, 144

Gyuk, G., & Holder, G.P. 1998, MNRAS, 297, L44

Han, M., Hoessel, J.G., Gallagher, J.S., Holtzman, J., & Stetson, P.B. 1997, AJ, 113, 1001

Harbeck, D., Grebel, E.K., Holtzman, J., Geisler, D., & Sarajedini, A. 2000, AGM, 17, 45

Hargreaves, J.C., Gilmore, G., & Annan, J.D. 1996, MNRAS, 279, 108

Held, E.V., Saviane, I., Momany, Y., & Carraro, G. 2000, ApJ, 530, L85

Holtzman, J.A., Watson, A.M., Baum, W.A., Grillmair, C.J., Groth, E.J., Light, R.M., Lynds, R., & O’Neil, E.J. 1998, AJ, 115, 1946

Holtzman, J.A., Gallagher, J.S., Cole, A.A., Mould, J.R., Grillmair, C.J., Ballester, G.E., Burrows, C.J., Clarke, J.T., Crisp, D., Evans, R.W., Griffith, R.E., Hester, J.J., Hoessel, J.G., Scowen, P.A., Stapelfeldt, K.R., Trauger, J.T., & Watson, A.M. 1999, AJ, 118, 2262

Hunter, D.A., Hunsberger, S.D., & Roye, E.W. 2000, ApJ, in press (astro-ph/0005257)

Hurley-Keller, D., Mateo, M., & Nemec, J. 1998, AJ, 115, 1840

Ibata, R.A., & Razoumov, A.O. 1998, A&A, 336, 130

Irwin, M., & Hatzidimitriou, D. 1995, MNRAS, 277, 1354

Klessen, R.S., & Kroupa, P. 1998, ApJ, 498, 143

Kleyna, J.T., Geller, M.J., Kenyon, S.J., Kurtz, M.J., & Thorstensen, J.R. 1998, AJ, 115, 2359

Kleyna, J., Geller, M., Kenyon, S., & Kurtz, M. 1999, AJ, 117, 1275

Klypin, A., Kravtsov, A.V., Valenzuela, O., & Prada, F. 1999, ApJ, 522, 82

Kroupa, P. 1997, NewA, 2, 139

Kuhn, J.R. 1993, ApJ, 409, L13

Kuhn, J.R., & Miller, R.H. 1989, ApJ, 341, L41

Kuhn, J.R., Smith, H.A., & Hawley, S.L. 1996, ApJ, 469, L93

Kunkel, W.E. 1979, ApJ, 228, 718

Kunkel, W.E., & Demers, S. 1976, Roy. Green. Obs. Bull., 182, 241

Lavery, R.J., Seitzer, P., Walker, A.R., Suntzeff, N.B., & Da Costa, G.S. 1996, AAS, 188, 0903

Layden, A.C., & Sarajedini, A. 2000, AJ, 119, 1760

Leon, S., Meylan, G., & Combes, F. 2000, A&A, 359, 907

Lo, K.Y., Sargent, W.L.W., & Young, K. 1993, AJ, 106, 507

Longair, M.S. 1998, Galaxy Formation (Heidelberg: Springer)

Lynden-Bell, D. 1982, Observatory, 102, 202

Mac Low, M.-M., & Ferrara, A., 1999, ApJ, 513, 142

Majewski, S.R. 1994, ApJ, 431, L17

Majewski, S.R., Siegel, M.H., Kunkel, W.E., Reid, I.N., Johnston, K.V., Thompson, I.B., Landolt, A.U., & Palma, C. 1999, AJ, 1709

Majewski, S.R., Ostheimer, J.C., Patterson, R.J., Kunkel, W.E., Johnston, K.V., & Geisler, D. 2000, AJ, 119, 760

Mateo, M. 1997, in 2nd Stromlo Symposium, The Nature of Elliptical Galaxies, ed. M. Arnaboldi, G.S. da Costa, & P. Saha (San Francisco: ASP), 259

Mateo, M. 1998, ARA&A, 36, 435

Mateo, M., Olszewski, E.W., Vogt, S.S., & Keane, M.J. 1998, AJ, 116, 2315

Mighell, K.J. 1997, AJ, 114, 1458

Mighell, K.J., & Rich, R.M., 1996, AJ, 111, 777

Milgrom, M. 1983a, ApJ, 270, 365

Milgrom, M. 1983b, ApJ, 270, 384

Milgrom, M. 1994, ApJ, 429, 540

Milgrom, M. 1995, ApJ, 455, 439

Minniti, D., Olszewski, E.W., Liebert, J., White, S.D.M., Hill, J.M., & Irwin, M.J. 1995, MNRAS, 277, 1293

Monkiewicz, J., Mould, J.R., Gallagher, J.S., Clarke, J.T., Trauger, J.T., Grillmair, C., Ballester, G.E., Burrows, C.J., Crisp, D., Evans, R., Griffiths, R., Hester, J.J., Hoessel, J.G., Holtzman, J.A., Krist, J.E., Meadows, V., Scowen, P.A., Stapelfeldt, K.R., Sahai, R., & Watson, A. 1999, PASP, 111, 1392

Moore, B. 1996, ApJ, 461, L13

Odenkirchen, M., Grebel, E.K., Rockosi, C.M., Dehnen, W., Ibata, R., Rix, H.-W., Stolte, A., Wolf, C., Bahcall, N.A., Brinkmann, J., Csabai, I., Hennessy, G., Hindsley, R.B., Ivezić, Ž., Pier, J.R., York, D., ApJL, submitted

Oh, K.S., Lin, D.N.C., & Aarseth, S.J. 1995, ApJ, 442, 1420

Oh, K.S., Lin, D.N.C., & Richer, H.B. 2000, ApJ, 531, 727

Olsen, K.A.G. 1999, AJ, 117, 2244

Olszewski, E.W. 1998, in UC Santa Cruz Workshop, Galactic Halos, ed. D. Zaritsky (Provo: ASP), 70

Olszewski, E.W., Aaronson, E.W., & Hill, J.M. 1995, AJ, 110, 2120

Olszewski, E.W., Pryor, C., & Armandroff, T.E. 1996, AJ, 111, 750

Piatek, S., & Pryor, C. 1995, AJ, 109, 1071

Points, S.D., Chu, Y.-H., Kim, S., Smith, R.C., Snowden, S.L., Brandner, W., & Gruendl, R.A. 1999, ApJ, 518, 298

Pryor, C. 1996, in ASP Conf. Ser. 92, Formation of the Galactic Halo…Inside and Out, ed. H. Morrison & A. Sarajedini (San Francisco: ASP), 424

Putman, M.E., Gibson, B.K., Staveley-Smith, L., Banks, G., Barnes, D.G., Bhatal. R., Disney, M.J., Ekers, R.D., Freeman, K.C., Haynes, R.F., Henning, P., Jerjen, H., Kilborn, V., Koribalski, B., Knezek, P., Malin, D.F., Mould, J.R., Oosterloo, T., Price, R.M., Ryder, S.M., Sadler, E.M., Stewart, I., Stootman, F., Vaile, R.A., Webster, R.L., & Wright, A.E. 1998, Nature, 394, 752

Rocha-Pinto, H.J., Scalo, J., Maciel, W.J., & Flynn, C. 2000, ApJ, 531, L115

Ryan, S.G., Norris, J.E., & Beers, T.C. 1996, ApJ, 471, 254

Sage, L.J., Welch, G.A., & Mitchell, G.F. 1998, ApJ, 507, 726

Sarajedini, A., Geisler, D., Harding, P., & Schommer, R. 1998, ApJ, 508, L37

Searle, L., & Zinn, R., 1978, ApJ, 225, 357

Shara, M.M., Fall, S.M., Rich, R.M., & Zurek, D. 1998, ApJ, 508, 570

Siegel, M.H., & Majewski, S.R. 2000, AJ, 120, 284

Smecker-Hane, T.A., Stetson, P.B., Hesser, J.E., & Lehnert, M.D. 1994, AJ, 108, 507

Smith, G.H., Holtzman, J.A., & Grillmair, C.J. 2000, in prep.

Tolstoy, E., Gallagher, J.S., Cole, A.A., Hoessel, J.G., Saha, A., Dohm-Palmer, R.C., Skillman, E.D., Mateo, M., & Hurley-Keller, D. 1998, AJ, 116, 1244

Tolstoy, E., Gallagher, J.S., Greggio, L., Tosi, M., de Marchi, G., Romaniello, M., Minniti, D., & Zijlstra, A. 2000, Messenger, 99, 16

Tyson, J.A., Wittman, D., & Angel, J.R.P. 2000, in Dark Matter 2000 (New York: Springer), in press (astro-ph/0005381)

Welch, G.A., Sage, L.J., & Mitchell, G.F. 1998, ApJ, 499, 209

Wilcots, E.M., & Miller, B.W. 1998, AJ, 116, 2363

Young, L.M. 2000, AJ, 119, 188

Young, L.M., & Lo, K.Y. 1996, ApJ, 464, L59

Young, L.M., & Lo, K.Y. 1997a, ApJ, 476, 127

Young, L.M., & Lo, K.Y. 1997b, ApJ, 490, 710

van den Bergh, S. 1994, ApJ, 428, 617

van den Bergh, S. 1999, A&ARv, 9, 273

van den Bergh, S. 2000, The Local Group (Cambridge: CUP)

van den Bosch, F.C., & Dalcanton, J.J. 2000, ApJ, 534, 146


text:
# Perturbations of Weyl-Heisenberg frames

## 1. Introduction

In 1952, Duffin and Schaeffer  introduced the notion of a frame for a Hilbert space. A sequence $`(f_n)_{nI}`$ is a frame for a Hilbert space $`H`$ if there are constants $`A,B>0`$ satisfying,

(1.1)
$$Af^2\underset{nI}{}|f,f_n|^2Bf^2,$$

for all $`fH`$. The constant $`A`$ (respectively, $`B`$) is a lower (resp. upper) frame bound for the frame. One of the most important frames for applications, especially signal processing, are the Weyl-Heisenberg frames. For $`gL^2()`$ we define the translation parameter $`a>0`$ and the modulation parameter $`b>0`$ by:

$$E_{mb}g(t)=e^{2\pi imbt},T_{na}g(t)=g(tna).$$

For $`gL^2()`$ and $`a,b>0`$, we say for short that $`(g,a,b)`$ is a Weyl-Heisenberg frame for $`L^2()`$ if $`(E_{mb}T_{na}g)_{m,n}`$ is a frame for $`L^2()`$. We call $`(f_n)_{nI}`$ a Riesz basis (resp. Riesz basic sequence) for a Hilbert space $`H`$ if it is a bounded unconditional basis for $`H`$ (resp. for its closed linear span.)

Weyl-Heisenberg frames are extremely sensitive to even arbitrarily small changes in the function $`g`$ and the translation and modulation parameters. For example, $`(E_mT_n\chi _{[0,1]})_{m,n}`$ is a frame for $`L^2()`$, but for arbitrary $`ϵ>0`$, the functions $`(E_mT_n\chi _{[0,1ϵ]})_{m,n}`$ are not. As a result, there are few general theorems on perturbations of Weyl-Heisenberg frames and those that exist are often very technical in nature (see , and the article of Christensen in ). In this note we will obtain some very usable perturbation results for Weyl-Heisenberg frames with only elementary assumptions by using the Wiener Amalgam space norm and by adding continuity assumptions to the function $`g`$. We will also give examples to show that these results are best possible.

## 2. Preliminary Results

To simplify the notation a little, given a function $`gL^2()`$ and $`a,b`$, we define for $`k`$ the function

$$G_k(t)=\underset{n}{}g(tna)\overline{g(tnak/b)}$$

It is not difficult to prove that the series defining $`G_k(t)`$ converges absolutely for a.e. $`x`$. We will need the Weyl-Heisenberg Frame Identity (see , Theorem 4.1.5, or  for a complete treatment).

###### Theorem 2.1.

(WH-Frame Identity.) If $`_n|g(tna)|^2B`$ a.e. and $`fL^2()`$ is bounded and compactly supported, then

$`{\displaystyle \underset{n,m}{}}`$ $`|<f,E_{mb}T_{na}g>|^2`$
$`=`$ $`b^1{\displaystyle \underset{k}{}}{\displaystyle _R}\overline{f(t)}f(tk/b){\displaystyle \underset{n}{}}g(tna)\overline{g(tnak/b)}dt`$
$`=`$ $`b^1{\displaystyle _R}|f(t)|^2{\displaystyle \underset{n}{}}|g(tna)|^2dt+b^1{\displaystyle \underset{k0}{}}{\displaystyle _R}\overline{f(t)}f(tk/b)G_k(t)𝑑t.`$
We define the Wiener Amalgam space $`W(L^{\mathrm{}},\mathrm{}^1)`$ as the set of functions $`gL^2()`$ for which for some $`a>0`$,

$$g_{W,a}:=\underset{n}{}T_{na}g\chi _{[0,a[}_{\mathrm{}}<\mathrm{}.$$

It can be proved that if $`g_{W,a}`$ is finite for one value of $`a`$, it is automatically finite for all $`a`$. Furthermore, $`g_{W,a}`$ defines a norm on $`W(L^{\mathrm{}},\mathrm{}^1)`$.

We need some elementary facts about the Wiener Amalgam space. These can be found for example in , Proposition 4.1.7 and the proof of Theorem 4.1.8.

###### Lemma 2.2.

Let $`gW(L^{\mathrm{}},\mathrm{}^1)`$.

(1) If $`0<ab`$ then $`g_{W,b}2g_{W,a}`$.

(2) $`g_{W,a/2}2g_{W,a}`$.

(3) Given functions $`f,hW(L^{\mathrm{}},\mathrm{}^1)`$,

$$\underset{k}{}\underset{n}{}|T_{na}f||T_{na+k/b}h|_{\mathrm{}}4f_{W,a}h_{W,a}.$$

The next result follows from the proof of Theorem 2.3 from .

###### Lemma 2.3.

For $`gL^2()`$ and bounded, compactly supported $`f`$, we have

$`{\displaystyle \underset{k}{}}{\displaystyle |\overline{f(t)}f(tk/b)\underset{nZ}{}g(tna)\overline{g(tnak/b)}|𝑑t}`$
$`{\displaystyle |f(t)|^2\underset{k}{}|G_k(t)|dt}.`$
We also need the perturbation result of Christensen and Heil

###### Theorem 2.4.

If $`(f_i)`$ is a frame with frame bounds $`A,B`$ and there exists a constant $`R[0,A[`$ such that for all $`fH`$,

$$\underset{i}{}|<f,f_ig_i>|^2Rf^2,$$

then $`(g_i)`$ is a frame with bounds $`A(1\sqrt{\frac{R}{A}})^2,B(1+\sqrt{\frac{R}{B}})^2`$.

## 3. Perturbations

We start with a Proposition which contains the basic tool for our first perturbation result. In light of theorem 2.4 all we really need to show is that the system $`(hg,a,b)`$ has a finite upper frame bound. More specifically:

###### Proposition 3.1.

Suppose $`(g,a,b)`$ is a WH-frame with frame bounds $`A,B`$ and let $`hL^2()`$. If there exists $`R<A`$ such that

(3.1) $`{\displaystyle \underset{k}{}}|{\displaystyle \underset{n}{}}(hg)(tna)\overline{(hg)(tnak/b)}|bR,\text{a.e.},`$
then $`(h,a,b)`$ is a Weyl-Heisenberg frame for $`H`$ with frame bounds
$`A(1\sqrt{\frac{R}{A}})^2,B(1+\sqrt{\frac{R}{B}})^2`$. Moreover, if $`(g,a,b)`$ is a Riesz basis for $`L^2()`$, then $`(h,a,b)`$ is also a Riesz basis.

Proof. Let $`f`$ be bounded and compactly supported. By the WH-frame Identity and Lemma 2.3 we have:

$`{\displaystyle \underset{n,m}{}}`$ $`|<f,E_{mb}T_{na}(hg)>|^2`$
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{b}}{\displaystyle \underset{k}{}}{\displaystyle _{}}\overline{f(t)}f(tk/b){\displaystyle \underset{n}{}}(hg)(tna)\overline{(hg)(tnak/b)}dt`$
$``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{b}}{\displaystyle _{}}|f(t)|^2{\displaystyle \underset{k}{}}|{\displaystyle \underset{n}{}}(hg)(tna)(hg)\overline{(tnak/b)}|dt`$
$``$ $`Rf^2`$
The set of bounded compactly supported functions is dense in $`L^2()`$, so the above estimate actually holds for all functions $`fL^2()`$. By Lemma 2.4, we have that $`(h,a,b)`$ is a frame with the given bounds, and $`(h,a,b)`$ is a Riesz basis if $`(g,a,b)`$ is a Riesz basis. ∎

In the paper of Jing  there is a section concerning perturbations of Weyl-Heisenberg frames which at first glance appear to be similar to our results. For example, in  one of the main perturbation results for WH-frames is that if $`(g,a,b)`$ is a WH-frame and

$$\left|\right|\underset{k,n}{}|(gh)(nak/b)|^2||_{\mathrm{}}<bA,$$

then $`(h,a,b)`$ is also a frame. However, it should be observed that if $`ab`$ is rational, this condition is only satisfied if $`g=h`$ a.e., i.e., the result is not useful in that case. Suppose namely that $`(gh)(x)0`$. Since there exist an infinite number of $`n,k`$ such that $`na+\frac{k}{b}=0`$, it follows that
$`_{k,n}|(gh)(xna\frac{k}{b}|^2=\mathrm{}`$. However, Proposition 3.1 above applies for any value of $`ab`$.

We will now show that our perturbation result works whenever $`g,h`$ are close in the Wiener Amalgam norm. Note that this result does not require $`g`$ to be in the Wiener Amalgam space.

###### Theorem 3.2.

Suppose that $`(g,a,b)`$ is a WH-frame with frame bounds $`A,B`$. Let $`hL^2()`$, and assume there exists $`R<A`$ such that

$$gh_{W,a}\sqrt{\frac{bR}{4}}.$$

Then $`(h,a,b)`$ is a WH-frame with bounds $`A(1\sqrt{\frac{R}{A}})^2,B(1+\sqrt{\frac{R}{B}})^2`$. Moreover, if $`(g,a,b)`$ is a Riesz basis for $`L^2()`$, then $`(h,a,b)`$ is also a Riesz basis.

Proof. Using Lemma 2.2, we have

$`{\displaystyle \underset{k}{}}`$ $`|{\displaystyle \underset{n}{}}(hg)(tna)\overline{(hg)(tnak/b)}|`$
$``$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{k}{}}{\displaystyle \underset{n}{}}|T_{na}(gh)||T_{na+k/b}(gh)|_{\mathrm{}}`$
$``$ $`4gh_{W,a}gh_{W,a}=4gh_{W,a}^2bR.`$
So the result follows from Proposition 3.1. ∎

The condition $`R<A`$ in Proposition 3.1 can not be relaxed. To see this, fix $`ϵ>0`$ and let

$$g=\chi _{[0,1]}+(1ϵ)\chi _{[1,2]},h=\chi _{[0,2]},$$

$`(g,1,1)`$ is a Riesz basis for $`L^2()`$ with lower frame bound $`ϵ^2`$, since, for any finite sequence of scalars $`(a_{mn})_{m,n}`$ we have

$`{\displaystyle \underset{m,n}{}}a_{mn}E_mT_ng`$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{m,n}{}}a_{mn}E_mT_n\chi _{[0,1]}{\displaystyle \underset{m,n}{}}a_{mn}E_mT_n(1ϵ)\chi _{[1,2]}`$
$`=`$ $`ϵ{\displaystyle \underset{m,n}{}}a_{mn}E_mT_n\chi _{[0,1]}=ϵ\left({\displaystyle \underset{m,n}{}}|a_{mn}|^2\right)^{1/2}.`$
Also,

$$\underset{k}{}|\underset{n}{}(hg)(xn)\overline{(hg)(xkn)}|=ϵ^2,\text{for all}x.$$

But $`(h,1,1)`$ is not a WH-frame. The easiest way to check this is to use the well known fact that $`(h,1,1)`$ is a WH-frame if and only if it is a Riesz basis. But,

$$\underset{k=0}{\overset{2n1}{}}(1)^kT_kh=\chi _{[0,1]}\chi _{[2n1,2n]}=\sqrt{2}.$$

So $`(T_kh)_k`$ is not a Riesz basic sequence in $`L^2()`$.

Let $`(g,a,b)`$ be a WH-frame. It is an open question which Weyl-Heisenberg frames are equivalent to compactly supported Weyl-Heisenberg frames. Also, it is another delicate question when we can restrict the function $`g`$ to a compact subset of $``$ and still have a WH-frame for $`L^2()`$. This question goes directly to the heart of applications where compactly supported WH-frames are used. Our next result shows that this is possible whenever $`gW(L^{\mathrm{}},\mathrm{}^1)`$.

###### Corollary 3.3.

If $`gW(L^{\mathrm{}},\mathrm{}^1)`$ and $`(g,a,b)`$ is a WH-frame, then there is a natural number $`N`$ so that $`(\chi _{[n,n]}g,a,b)`$ is a WH-frame whenever $`nN`$.

Proof. We assume that $`(g,a,b)`$ is a WH-frame with frame bounds $`A,B`$. Since $`gW(L^{\mathrm{}},\mathrm{}^1)`$ we have

$$\underset{n}{}\chi _{[n,n+1)}g_{\mathrm{}}<\mathrm{},$$

and so

$$\underset{n\mathrm{}}{lim}\underset{|m|n}{}\chi _{[m,m+1)}g_{\mathrm{}}=\underset{n\mathrm{}}{lim}\chi _{[n,n]}gg_{W,a}=0.$$

Hence, there is an $`N`$ so that for all $`nN`$ we have that $`\chi _{[n,n+1)}g_{\mathrm{}}1`$ and

$$\chi _{[N,N]}gg_{W,1}<\sqrt{\frac{bA}{4}}.$$

Now for $`nN`$ we have

$$\chi _{[n,n]}gg_{L^2()}^2_{|t|N}|f(t)|^2𝑑t=\underset{|k|N}{}_0^1|f(tk)|^2𝑑t$$

$$\underset{|k|N}{}\chi _{[k,k+1)}g_{\mathrm{}}^2\underset{|k|N}{}\chi _{[k,k+1)}g_{\mathrm{}}=\chi _{[N,N]}gg<\sqrt{\frac{bA}{4}}.$$

The Corollary now follows from Theorem 3.2. ∎

Now we have a considerable strengthening of Proposition 3.1 for the case $`a=b=1`$.

###### Theorem 3.4.

Let $`(g,1,1)`$ be a WH-frame with frame bounds $`A,B`$. Let $`hL^2()`$ and $`0<\lambda <1`$ satisfy

$$\underset{n}{}|(gh)(x+n)|\lambda \sqrt{A}\text{a.e.}$$

Then $`(h,1,1)`$ is a WH-frame for $`L^2()`$ with frame bounds

$$(1\lambda )^2A\text{and}(1+\lambda )^2B.$$

Proof. If $`Z`$ is the Zak transform, we have

$$|Z(g)(x,y)Z(h)(x,y)|=|\underset{n}{}g(x+n)e^{2\pi iny}\underset{n}{}h(xn)e^{2\pi iny}|$$

$$\underset{n}{}|(gh)(x+n)|\lambda \sqrt{A}\lambda |Zg(x,y)|.$$

It follows that,

$$(1\lambda )\sqrt{A}(1\lambda )|Z(g)(x,y)||Z(h)(x,y)|$$

$$(1+\lambda )|Z(g)(x,y)|(1+\lambda )\sqrt{B}.$$

So $`(h,1,1)`$ is a Weyl-Heisenberg frame for $`L^2()`$ with the stated frame bounds (see , Theorem 4.3.3). ∎

It is easily seen that we can not allow $`\lambda =1`$ in the inequality in Theorem 3.4. For example, if $`g=\chi _{[0,1]},h=\chi _{[0,2]}`$ then $`(g,1,1)`$ is an orthonormal basis for $`L^2()`$ and as we saw earlier, $`(h,1,1)`$ is not a frame. But,

$$\underset{n}{}|(gh)(x+n)|=1\text{a.e.}$$

We might hope for an even sharper result with the inequality in Theorem 3.4 changed to

$$\underset{n}{}|(gh)(x+n)|^2\lambda A^\alpha ,$$

for some $`0<\alpha 1`$. Unfortunately, this fails. For example, let

$$g=\chi _{[0,1]}$$

and

$$h=\frac{1}{2}\chi _{[0,2]}.$$

Then $`(h,1,1)`$ is not a frame (since $`(T_nh)_n`$ is not a Riesz basic sequence) while $`(g,1,1)`$ is an orthonormal basis for $`L^2()`$ (and so $`A=B=1`$). Finally,

$$\underset{n}{}|(gh)(t+n)|^2=\left(\frac{1}{2}\right)^2+\left(\frac{1}{2}\right)^2=\frac{1}{2}=\frac{1}{2}A^\alpha .$$

Now let $`(g,a,b)`$ be a frame and we will look at perturbations of the modulation and translation parameters to see when we can still be guaranteed to have a WH-frame. The main problem here is that we may not be able to change $`a`$ or $`b`$ by any arbitrarily small amount and still get a frame. This follows from a result of Feichtinger and Janssen . They show that there is a function $`gL^2()`$ so that $`(g,a,b)`$ has a finite upper frame bound only when a and b are rational. Therefore, no matter how close $`(a^{^{}},b^{^{}})`$ is to $`(a,b)`$, we still may not have a frame. The next technical difficulty occurs if $`a=b=1`$. If $`(g,1,1)`$ is a WH-frame, then we can never have a general result of the form: $`|a^{}a|<ϵ`$ implies $`(g,a^{},1)`$ is a frame since if $`a^{}>1`$ then $`(g,a^{},1)`$ is never complete. Despite these strong limitations, we can obtain some satisfactory perturbation results which will guarantee that if the translation parameters are close enough then we will have a frame for all small $`b`$. In this result, as well as the rest of the results in this section, the price we pay for being able to perturb in one parameter is that the other parameter may change drastically.

###### Theorem 3.5.

Let $`gW(L^{\mathrm{}},\mathrm{}^1)`$ with $`(g,a,b)`$ a WH-frame with frame bounds $`A,B`$ and let $`0<R<bA`$. There is an $`0<ϵ\frac{a}{2}`$ and $`b_0=b_0(ϵ)`$ so that whenever $`|aa^{}|<ϵ`$ and

$$\underset{n}{}|g(tna)g(tna^{})|^2R,\text{a.e.},$$

then $`(g,a^{},b^{})`$ is a WH-frame whenever $`0<b^{}<b_0`$.

Proof. If $`(g,a,b)`$ generates a WH-frame with frame bounds $`A,B`$ then (see Heil and Walnut , the proof of Proposition 4.1.4, page 649)

$$bA\underset{n}{}|g(tna)|^2bB,\text{a.e.}$$

Using the (reverse) triangle inequality we have

$`\sqrt{bA}\sqrt{R}`$ $``$ $`\left({\displaystyle \underset{n}{}}|g(tna)|^2\right)^{1/2}\left({\displaystyle \underset{n}{}}|g(tna)g(tna^{})|^2\right)^{1/2}`$
$``$ $`\left({\displaystyle \underset{n}{}}|g(tna^{})|^2\right)^{1/2}`$
$``$ $`\left({\displaystyle \underset{n}{}}|g(tna)|^2\right)^{1/2}+\left({\displaystyle \underset{n}{}}|g(tna)g(tna^{})|^2\right)^{1/2}`$
$``$ $`\sqrt{bA}+\sqrt{R}\text{ a.e.}`$
For the rest, we borrow an argument from  (the proof of Theorem 4.1.8). Fix $`0<ϵa/2`$ satisfying

$$\delta =:32ϵg_{W,a}+16ϵ^2<[\sqrt{bA}\sqrt{R}]^2.$$

Now let $`N`$ be so large that

$$\underset{|n|N}{}g\chi _{[an,a(n+1))}_{\mathrm{}}<ϵ.$$

Let $`g_0=g\chi _{[aN,aN]}`$ and $`g_1=gg_0`$, so that $`g_1_{W,a}<ϵ`$. Now if

$$b\frac{1}{4aN}=b_0$$

then (with $`G_k^{}(t):=_nT_{na^{}}g(x)T_{na^{}+k/b^{}}\overline{g(x)}`$)

$`{\displaystyle \underset{k0}{}}`$ $`G_k^{}(t)_{\mathrm{}}={\displaystyle \underset{k0}{}}{\displaystyle \underset{n}{}}T_{na^{}}gT_{na^{}+k/b^{}}\overline{g}_{\mathrm{}}`$
$``$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{k0}{}}{\displaystyle \underset{n}{}}|T_{na^{}}g||T_{na^{}+k/b^{}}g_{\mathrm{}}`$
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{k0}{}}{\displaystyle \underset{n}{}}|T_{na^{}}g_0+T_{na^{}}g_1||T_{na^{}+k/b^{}}g_0+T_{na^{}+k/b^{}}g_1|_{\mathrm{}}`$
$``$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{k0}{}}{\displaystyle \underset{n}{}}|T_{na^{}}g_0||T_{na^{}+k/b^{}}g_0|_{\mathrm{}}+{\displaystyle \underset{k0}{}}{\displaystyle \underset{n}{}}|T_{na^{}}g_0||T_{na^{}+k/b^{}}g_1|_{\mathrm{}}+`$
$`+`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{k0}{}}{\displaystyle \underset{n}{}}|T_{na^{}}g_1||T_{na^{}+k/b^{}}g_0|_{\mathrm{}}+{\displaystyle \underset{k0}{}}{\displaystyle \underset{n}{}}|T_{na^{}}g_1||T_{na^{}+k/b^{}}g_1|_{\mathrm{}}`$
$``$ $`0+8g_0_{W,a^{}}g_1_{W,a^{}}+4g_1_{W,a^{}}^2.`$
Now, since $`\frac{a}{2}a^{}2a`$, we can continue our inequality using Lemma 2.2, (1) and (2) to get:

$`{\displaystyle \underset{k0}{}}G_k^{^{}}(t)_{\mathrm{}}`$ $`=`$
$`{\displaystyle \underset{k0}{}}{\displaystyle \underset{n}{}}T_{na^{^{}}}gT_{na^{}+k/b^{}}\overline{g}_{\mathrm{}}`$ $``$ $`8g_0_{W,a^{}}g_1_{W,a^{}}+4g_1_{W,a^{}}^2`$
$``$ $`32g_0_{W,a}g_1_{W,a}+16g_1_{W,a}^2`$
$``$ $`32ϵg_{W,a}+16ϵ^2=\delta .`$
It follows by Lemma 2.3 that if $`|aa^{}|<ϵ`$ and $`0<b^{}b_0`$ then for all bounded, compactly supported functions $`fL^2()`$ we have

$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{b^{}}}`$ $`|{\displaystyle \underset{k0}{}}`$ $`{\displaystyle _{}}\overline{f(t)}f(tk/b^{})G_k^{}(t)dt|`$
$``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{b^{}}}{\displaystyle \underset{k0}{}}G_k^{}(t)_{\mathrm{}}{\displaystyle _{}}|f(t)|^2𝑑t{\displaystyle \frac{1}{b^{}}}\delta f^2.`$
Also, from the first part of the proof, for all $`f`$ as above we have,

$$\frac{1}{b^{}}(\sqrt{bA}\sqrt{R})^2f^2\frac{1}{b^{}}_{}|f(t)|^2\underset{n}{}|g(tna^{})|^2dt\frac{1}{b^{}}(\sqrt{bA}+\sqrt{R})^2f^2.$$

Finally, the WH-Frame Identity yields,

$`{\displaystyle \underset{m,n}{}}|f,E_{mb^{}}T_{na^{}}g|^2`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{b^{}}}{\displaystyle _{}}|f(t)|^2{\displaystyle \underset{n}{}}|g(tna^{})|^2dt`$
$`+`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{b^{}}}{\displaystyle \underset{k0}{}}{\displaystyle _{}}\overline{f(t)}f(tk/b^{})G_n^{}(t)𝑑t.`$
Putting this altogether we have that

$$\frac{1}{b^{}}[(\sqrt{bA}\sqrt{R})^2\delta ]f^2\underset{m,n}{}|f,E_{mb^{}}T_{na^{}}g|^2\frac{1}{b^{}}[(\sqrt{bA}+\sqrt{R})^2+\delta ]f^2.$$

Since this inequality holds for all bounded compactly supported functions $`fL^2()`$, it holds for all $`fL^2()`$, which completes the proof. ∎

A general setting where the conditions of Theorem 3.5 will hold is when $`g`$ is continuous. This is just enough to offset the Feichtinger-Janssen example .

###### Corollary 3.6.

If $`gW(L^{\mathrm{}},\mathrm{}^1)`$ is continuous and $`(g,a,b)`$ is a frame, then there is a $`\delta >0`$ and a $`b_0>0`$ so that $`(g,a^{},b^{})`$ is a WH-frame whenever

$$|aa^{}|<\delta ,$$

and $`0<b^{}<b_0`$.

Proof. We just need to verify that the conditions of Theorem 3.5 hold. Fix $`R<bA`$. Since $`fW(L^{\mathrm{}},\mathrm{}^1)`$, we can choose a natural number $`n_0`$ so that

$$(1\chi _{[a(n_0+1),an_0]})g_{W,a}<\frac{R}{3}.$$

Since $`g`$ is continuous on the compact set $`[an_0,a(n_0+1)]`$, it is uniformly continuous there. In particular, there is a $`\delta >0`$ so that if $`x,y[an_0,a(n_0+1)]`$ then

$$|xy|\delta ,|g(x)g(y)|^2<\frac{R}{3(2n_0+2)}.$$

Let $`ϵ=\frac{\delta }{n_0}`$. Now, if $`|aa^{}|<ϵ`$ and then for all $`n_0nn_01`$ we have

$$|(tna)(tna^{})|=|n||aa^{}|<|n|ϵ=\frac{|n|}{n_0}\delta \delta .$$

Hence, for $`t[0,a]`$,

$$|g(tna)g(tna^{})|^2<\frac{R}{3(2n_0+2)},$$

It follows that

$`{\displaystyle \underset{n}{}}`$ $`|g(tna)g(tna^{})|^2`$
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{n=n_0}{\overset{n_0+1}{}}}|g(tna)g(tna^{})|^2+{\displaystyle \underset{\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{n<n_0}{n>n_0+1}}{}}|g(tna)g(tna^{})|^2`$
$``$ $`(2n_0+2){\displaystyle \frac{R}{3(2n_0+2)}}+2(1\chi _{[a(n_0+1),an_0]})g_{W,a}`$
$`<`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{R}{3}}+{\displaystyle \frac{2R}{3}}=R.`$
The Corollary now follows by Theorem 3.5. ∎

We now have immediately the corresponding result for compactly supported functions.

###### Corollary 3.7.

If $`(g,a,b)`$ is a WH-frame where $`g`$ is compactly supported and continuous, then there is a $`\delta >0`$ and a $`b_0>0`$ so that $`(g,a^{},b^{})`$ is a WH-frame whenever

$$|aa^{}|<\delta ,$$

and $`0<b^{}<b_0`$.

Continuity is necessary in the preceding results. A trivial example occurs if we consider $`(\chi _{[0,1]},1,1)`$ since no matter how close we have $`a^{}`$ to $`a`$, if $`a<a^{}`$, we cannot have a frame for any $`b`$ since a necessary condition for $`(g,a,b)`$ to form a WH-frame with frame bounds $`A,B`$ is that $`bA_n|g(tna)|^2bB,\text{a.e.}`$ In light of this, it is more natural to ask for $`(g,a^{},b^{})`$ to form a frame for $`0<aa^{}<ϵ`$, and all small $`b^{}`$. But again, the above results will fail without the assumption of continuity. For example, we can let

$$E_1=[0,1\frac{1}{16}),$$

$$E_2=_{n=2}^{\mathrm{}}[1\frac{1}{2^{2n}},1\frac{1}{2^{2n+1}}),$$

and

$$E_3=_{n=2}^{\mathrm{}}[2\frac{1}{2^{2n+1}},2\frac{1}{2^{2(n+1)}}).$$

Let $`F=E_1E_2E_3`$ and $`g=\chi _F`$. Then it is immediate that $`(g,1,1)`$ is an orthonormal basis for $`L^2()`$. Now, if

$$1\frac{1}{2^{2n+1}}<a^{}<1\frac{1}{2^{2(n+1)}}$$

then for all

$$1\frac{1}{2^{2n+1}}<ta^{},$$

we have that $`g(t)=0`$, and for $`n1`$, $`tna^{}<0`$ so $`g(tna^{})=0`$. Also, for $`n2`$ we have that $`2<t+na^{}`$ and so $`g(t+na^{})=0`$. Finally, for $`n=1`$ we have that

$$2\frac{1}{2^{2n}}=1\frac{1}{2^{2n+1}}+1\frac{1}{2^{2n+1}}t+a^{}<1\frac{1}{2^{2(n+1)}}+1\frac{1}{2^{2(n+1)}}=2\frac{1}{2^{2n+1}}.$$

Hence, $`g(t+a^{})=0`$. It follows that

$$\underset{n}{}|g(tna^{})|^2=0,\text{for all}1\frac{1}{2^{2n+1}}<ta^{}.$$

In particular, $`(g,a^{},b)`$ is not a frame for all $`0<b`$. It follows that, given any $`ϵ>0`$, there is an interval of points $`a^{}`$ with $`0<aa^{}<ϵ`$ so that $`(g,a^{},b)`$ is not a frame for all $`0<b`$.