text:
# Arecibo imaging of compact high–velocity clouds

## 1 Introduction

There are two principal categories of the anomalous H high–velocity cloud phenomenon. The first category, which contributes most of the emission flux, consists of low–contrast maxima of extended diffuse complexes with angular sizes up to tens of degrees. These complexes contribute a large fraction of the total HVC flux density observed; examples include the Magellanic Stream of debris from the Galaxy/LMC interaction (e.g. Putman & Gibson putm99 (1999)) as well as some half–dozen extended HVC complexes (including complexes A, C, H, M, and others). Although firm constraints on distances have been achieved only for a few of the complexes, the available distance determinations show these to lie rather nearby, at about 10 kpc (e.g. van Woerden et al. woer99 (1999)). If, as seems plausible, the other large complexes also lie at distances ranging from several to some 50 kpc, they will have been substantially affected by the radiation and gravitational fields of the Milky Way. The second category of anomalous H high–velocity clouds are the compact high velocity clouds (CHVCs, Braun & Burton brau99 (1999), hereafter BB99). CHVCs are intrinsically compact, isolated objects with angular sizes of about 1 degree. The spatial and kinematic distributions of the CHVCs were found to be consistent with a dynamically cold ensemble spread throughout the Local Group, but with a net negative velocity with respect to the mean of the Local Group galaxies. This net negative velocity would imply an infall towards the Local Group barycenter at some 100 km s-1.

The possibility that some of the high–velocity clouds might be essentially extragalactic has been considered in various contexts by, among others, Oort (oort66 (1966), oort70 (1970), oort81 (1981)), Verschuur (vers75 (1975)), Eichler (eich76 (1976)), Einasto et al. (eina76 (1976)), Giovanelli (giov81 (1981)), Bajaja et al. (baja87 (1987)), Wakker & van Woerden (wakk97 (1997)), BB99, and Blitz et al. (blit99 (1999)). Blitz et al. revived the suggestion that high–velocity clouds are the primordial building blocks fueling galactic growth and evolution.

It is plausible to hypothesize that the high–velocity clouds may be viewed in terms of the hierarchical structure formation paradigm: the large HVC complexes would be nearby objects currently undergoing accretion onto the Galaxy, or representing tidal debris from a close encounter, while the compact, isolated CHVCs would be their distant counterparts, scattered throughout the Local Group environment. The accumulating support for such an hypothesis includes the evidence found by Helmi et al. (helm99 (1999)) in the Milky Way halo for a recently accreted dwarf galaxy, and the presence of the tidally disrupted Sagittarius dwarf galaxy (Ibata et al. ibat94 (1994)), which suggests stellar analogies to the extended HVC complexes; the theoretical simulations requiring numerous “mini–halo” systems (Klypin et al. klyp99 (1999), Moore et al. moor99 (1999)); as well as the relatively direct evidence regarding the distribution of some of the anomalous–velocity gas (Blitz et al. blit99 (1999), BB99). The CHVCs, which have a spatial and kinematic deployment similar to that of the Local Group dwarf galaxies, would represent inflowing material at substantial distances. Indications of internal star formation have not yet been found in CHVCs; if the objects are scattered throughout the Local Group, they have probably not yet been exposed to the Galactic radiation field or to strong external gravitational torques, and consequently the material would be in a less evolved form.

## 2 Motivation for filled–aperature observations

BB99 identified and confirmed a sample of 65 CHVCs. These objects evidently represent a more homogenous population than would a sample which included any of the major HVC complexes. The BB99 CHVC catalog was based on survey data made with telescopes of modest resolution. The primary source was the Leiden/Dwingeloo Survey (LDS) of Hartmann & Burton (hart97 (1997)), characterized by the angular resolution of $`36^{}`$ provided by the Dwingeloo 25–meter telescope; at this resolution the CHVCs are largely unresolved.

Of the sample of 65 CHVCs cataloged, eight have been subject to high–resolution synthesis imaging. Wakker & Schwarz (wakk91b (1991)) had used the Westerbork Synthesis Radio Telescope (WSRT) to show that both CHVC 114$``$06$``$466 and CHVC 114$``$10$``$430 exhibit a core/halo structure. Subsequently Braun & Burton (brau00 (2000), hereafter BB00) imaged six additional CHVC fields using the WSRT and showed that these objects also have a characteristic morphology whereby one or more quiescent, low–dispersion (linewidths in the range 2 to 10 km s-1 FWHM) compact cores (angular diameters typically 1 to 20 arcmin) are distributed over a region of some tens of arcmin extent, and are embedded in a diffuse, warmer halo of about one degree angular extent. We note that Cram & Giovanelli (cram76 (1976)) had earlier interpreted data, taken towards parts of an extended high–velocity cloud using the NRAO 300–foot and 140–foot telescopes, in terms of cold cores enveloped in warmer gas. However, that interpretation was based on the decomposition of complex line profiles into multiple Gaussian components, rather than direct observation of the individual components.

The high angular resolution of the WSRT data constitutes an important advantage in directly detecting the compact cores, but a particular disadvantage is inherent in synthesis data in detecting the diffuse halos. BB00 showed that the compact cores revealed so clearly in the WSRT data accounted for as little as 1% to only as much as 55% of the H line flux detected in the single–dish LDS observations. The cores typically cover only some 15% of the source area. The high resolution of the synthesis data also allowed unambiguous identification of the core material with the cool condensed phase of the H — the CNM — with kinetic temperatures near 100 K. However the diffuse structures extending over more than about 10 arcmin are not adequately imaged by the interferometer because of the missing short–spacing information.

BB00 attempted to account for this missing short–spacing information using the LDS material, but the sparseness of the total–power data supported only a crude correction. However, the data available for the CHVCs do suggest a characteristic two–phase structure, with the cores of CNM shielded by a halo of warm diffuse H — the WNM — with temperatures near 104 K (corresponding to a thermal linewidth of about 24 km s-1 FWHM). Since the diffuse halos could not be detected convincingly and directly by the synthesis imaging, this nested geometry remained conjecture for the targeted objects. Direct detection of the diffuse halos was the principal motivation for undertaking the Arecibo observations reported here: these observations now provide the first resolved detection of the diffuse halos of the CHVCs, and confirm that the halos are the WNM gaseous phase providing a shielding column density for the CNM of the compact cores.

The Arecibo telescope is well–suited to provide sensitivity to the total column density at relatively high angular resolution. This issue is particularly important for CHVC targets, because they are of a size comparable to the primary beam of most synthesis instruments. The Arecibo data thus complement the interferometric data in a crucial manner.

## 3 Sample selection

Ten examples of the compact, isolated high–velocity clouds of the type cataloged by BB99 were selected for the Arecibo observations. The targets are listed by their CHVC designation in Table 1. Nine of the sources had been identified in the BB99 compilation. The tenth source, CHVC 186$``$31$``$206, is evident in the LDS but it had not been included in the BB99 list because it appears in the same general area of the sky as the Anticenter Stream complex and therefore had been excluded by the isolation criterion of BB99. The new, higher–quality Arecibo data suggest that this source is sufficiently compact and isolated in velocity to be placed in the CHVC category. Three of the ten objects selected also occur in the Wakker & van Woerden (wakk91c (1991)) catalog, namely CHVC 158$``$39$``$285 (WvW486), CHVC 186+19$``$114 (WvW 215), and CHVC 198$``$12$``$103 (WvW 343), the others having evidently passed undetected through the relatively coarse gridding lattice of the data on which the Wakker & van Woerden catalog was based. The targets selected span both negative and positive radial velocities, and occur in both the northern and southern Galactic hemispheres. Consistent with the operational definition of the CHVC class of objects, the sources observed at Arecibo were only marginally resolved in the 36–arcmin beam of the Dwingeloo telescope.

## 4 Observations

### 4.1 Instrumental parameters

The observations were carried out during seven days in November, 1999, using the Gregorian feed together with the narrow L–band (LBN) receiver.

The spherical primary of the Arecibo telescope is 305 meters in diameter; the Gregorian optics comprises two subreflectors, illuminating the primary over an area of about $`210\times 240`$ meters in extent. The FWHM beamwidth measured with the wide L–band (LBW) feed at 1420 MHz is $`3.1\times 3.7`$ arcmin in the azimuth and zenith–angle directions, respectively (Heiles heil99 (1999)). Measurements for the LBN feed (Howell howe00 (2000)) yield values consistent with that of the LBW feed. Different sections of the spherical reflector are illuminated, however, depending on the source position. In order to minimize beam distortions and gain variations caused when the illuminated pattern spills over the edges of the primary surface, we constrained most of the observations to moderate zenith angles, less than $`17^{}`$. The pointing accuracy of the telescope system is about $`5^{\prime \prime }`$, and thus of no concern for the extended sources observed in our program. The observations were carried out during the period extending from local sunset until about two hours after sunrise, shown by experience to provide the most stable baselines.

The spectrometer was a 9–bit 2048 channel autocorrelator observing two polarizations with two simultaneous bandpass settings, namely 6.25 MHz and 1.56 MHz, yielding $`\mathrm{\Delta }v=1.3`$ and 0.32 km s-1, respectively. The bands were centered on the $`v_{\mathrm{LSR}}`$ of the CHVC targets as determined by BB99 for 9 of the 10 targets, and from observations from the LDS for CHVC 186$``$31$``$206.

### 4.2 Observing and calibration strategy

Each of the CHVC targets was first mapped on a grid of $`1{}_{}{}^{}\times 1^{}`$ size on a fully–sampled 90 arcsec lattice, but using short integrations, in order to determine the locations of the peak flux concentrations and derive a nominal gain calibration for the field based on the background continuum sources. Each Nyquist–sampled $`1{}_{}{}^{}\times 1^{}`$ map involved 73 minutes of effective integration time. The average of the first and last 90–arcsec of RA of each data-scan were used to calibrate the passband shape of each spectrum in that scan. In the event that source emission extends to the edges of the sampled region in RA, this will lead to a weighting down of such features. This possibility must be borne in mind in the subsequent analysis. An estimate of the continuum emission was then constructed by averaging in frequency over the line-free data. Spatial Gaussian fits were made to compact and unconfused continuuum sources which were present by chance in the observed fields. Comparison with the same sources detected in the NVSS (Condon et al. cond98 (1998)) allowed determination of a nominal absolute gain calibration factor for each field. Typically, several suitable sources with flux densities in the range of 100–200 mJy were present. The derived noise–equivalent flux density (NEFD, or $`T_{\mathrm{Sys}}`$/Gain) averaged over all observed fields was 3.30$`\pm `$0.26 Jy. While a small systematic variation (of about 5%) in NEFD is expected with zenith angle, we chose to adopt the NEFD derived from each fully–sampled image to calibrate all of the subsequent drift–scan data aquired for that field. The relationship between flux density and brightness temperature follows from the beam area at 1420 MHz, $`S`$(Jy/Beam) = 0.0634 $`T_\mathrm{B}`$(K).

These shallow images then served as finding charts on which to identify the principal flux concentrations. Longer–integration spectra were then accumulated in a single cross–cut made at constant declination by repeating drift scans of $`2^{}`$ length centered on this peak. As many as 75 constant–declination driftscans were accumulated for some of the objects, providing integration times of as much as 15 minutes per beam. As with the mapping data, the first and last 90 arcsec of each scan in RA were averaged to perform the initial calibration of the passband shape. A spatial smoothing in the RA direction with a 180 arcsec Gaussian was employed to enhance the signal–to–noise figure with only a modest degradation of spatial resolution. Various smoothings were employed in the velocity direction to enhance detection of low–surface–brightness emission features. On the basis of the final averaged and smoothed data, the off–source ranges of RA and velocity were determined. The off–source range of RA was used to form an average spectrum for a final passband calibration. The off–source range of velocity was used to determine the average continuum level to subtract from each spectrum. No other baseline manipulation was employed.

The resulting rms sensitivities over 10 km s-1, as indicated in column 4 of Table 1, were as low as 4 mK; this limit corresponds to sensitivity to H column density, after summing over the typical, 70 km s-1, emission linewidth at zero intensity, of $`2\times 10^{17}`$ cm-2. The resulting H material constitutes the most sensitive yet obtained for high–velocity clouds. This sensitivity is particularly important for determining the properties of the diffuse halos, largely inaccessible in synthesis data.

### 4.3 Observational displays

The observational material is displayed as follows.

The panel on the upper left in each of Figs. 1 through 10 shows contours of integrated intensity for the shallow $`1{}_{}{}^{}\times 1^{}`$ images made of each of the CHVC targets. These moment–map panels show the integrated H column depth at the contour levels, in units of $`10^{18}`$ cm-2, indicated below each panel, with the range of integration given in the column 5 of Table 1. The contour plot on the upper right in each of Figs. 110 shows the intensity–weighted velocity field as determined from the data in the integrated–flux map. The contours give the intensity–weighted $`v_{\mathrm{LSR}}`$, at the levels indicated below the panel.

The panels in the lower portion of the various Figs. 1 through 10 refer to the deep driftscan material accumlated over $`2^{}`$ at a central declination chosen for each CHVC. The panel on the lower left in each of the figures shows the resulting position, velocity map for each target at a velocity smoothing of 10 km s-1 FWHM. The constant declination along which the deep driftscan was made is indicated above each of these panels; the contours give the intensities in units of mK, at the levels indicated below each panel. The panels adjacent to the $`\alpha `$, $`v_{\mathrm{LSR}}`$ cuts show (from upper to lower, respectively) the $`v_{\mathrm{LSR}}`$ of the emission centroid measured along the cut, the velocity FWHM of the emission, and the logarithm of $`N_{\mathrm{HI}}`$ measured along the constant–$`\delta `$ cross–cut. These properties were determined from the region indicated by the vertical lines in the adjacent position, velocity diagram. This velocity range was chosen to encompasses as much as possible of the detected H emission from each object while excluding any confusing features.

Several of the position, velocity cross–cuts display a kinematic gradient, but it is important to remain aware that the longer–integration cross–cuts refer to a single slice, in a specific orientation, through a particular emission concentration, across a CHVC which may in fact comprise multiple cores. Until the data can be improved such that the entire object is imaged deeply, the shallow images shown in the upper panels of the relevant figure must be consulted to judge if this gradient is aligned with a possible elongation of the spatial map or with possible kinematic gradients seen in the larger context.

The plots in Figs. 11 and 12 show the variation of $`N_{\mathrm{HI}}`$ with radius measured from the position of peak column density in the single deeper–integration cross–cut made across each of the CHVC targets. The rms sensitivities (measured over 10 km s-1) of these slices are indicated in column 4 of Table 1; the total velocity extents over which the column depths were determined are indicated in column 5 of the table. The plots of $`N_{\mathrm{HI}}`$ against radius were truncated at a level of 2 times the rms value. The Eastern and Western halves of the CHVCs are plotted separately in the panels of Fig. 11 and 12, in order to allow assessment of the reflection–symmetry seen in the two halfs of the cross–cut. Since the choice of origin is arbitrary, it is the profile slope at a given column density which should be compared rather than simply the degree of overlap with this particular choice of origin. The dotted curve overlaid on each of the panels is described below.

The plots in Figs. 13 and 14 show the $`T_\mathrm{B}`$, $`v_{\mathrm{LSR}}`$ spectrum measured in the direction of the column density peak identified in the long–integration driftscans shown in the panels on the lower left of Figs. 110. Overlaid on each spectrum (at 1 km s-1 velocity resolution) is the profile representing a Gaussian fit. A single Gaussian was fit to all of the profiles expect for the one observed for CHVC 186+19$``$114, for which two Gaussians were judged inevitable. Note that the information for each CHVC represented in this figure refers only to a single line–of–sight toward one peak, namely the peak of the emission centroid chosen for the cross–cut.

## 5 Results for the selected CHVCs

We briefly summarize the structural and kinematic data obtained for each of the ten observed fields. We first comment on the appearance of each object in the shallow Nyquist–sampled $`1{}_{}{}^{}\times 1^{}`$ grids and in the deeper integrations along the two–degree cross–cut, as shown in the respective panels of Figs. 110, and then comment on the spatial and kinematic properties of one of the principal cores of each CHVC, as shown in the respective panels of Figs. 11 and 12 and Figs. 13 and 14. Some of the results are summarized in Table 2.

### 5.1 CHVC 092$``$39$``$367

CHVC 092$``$39$``$367 is one of the weaker objects in the BB99 catalog, but one at a relatively extreme negative radial velocity. With the $`3.^{}5`$ angular resolution of the Arecibo telescope, the feature shows a complex core/halo morphology. The two–dimensional shallow–mapping image, shown in the upper left of Fig. 1, reveals an ensemble of some half dozen separate cores, largely embedded in extended emission. The velocity centroids of the individual cores range between $`v_{\mathrm{LSR}}`$$`=350`$ and $`370`$ km s-1. The $`1{}_{}{}^{}\times 1^{}`$ image in the upper–left panel shows no well–defined structural axis, and the intensity–weighted velocity field of this two–dimensional image, shown in the panel on the upper–right of Fig. 1, also shows no well–defined kinematic pattern.

The longer–integration driftscan cross–cut spanned two degrees of right ascension at $`\delta =17{}_{}{}^{}24^{}`$. This declination was chosen because it crosses the core with the highest column density; but it will be clear that a cross–cut at a different constant declination, i.e. crossing a different region of the CHVC, might reveal different details. The cross–cut, displayed as an $`\alpha `$, $`v_{\mathrm{LSR}}`$ map in the lower left of Fig. 1, shows two of the brighter cores evident in the moment–map image, as well as one of the fainter cores evident in the two–dimensional image, but also an additional minor core feature which is out of the field of view of the $`1{}_{}{}^{}\times 1^{}`$ image. With the higher sensitivity of the longer integration, all four of these cores are revealed to be embedded in a common envelope.

The three panels grouped on the lower right of Fig. 1 show the $`v_{\mathrm{LSR}}`$, the velocity FWHM, and the logarithm of $`N_{\mathrm{HI}}`$, as measured along the constant–declination cross–cut. The data show an overall kinematic gradient spanning about 20 km s-1over the 1.5 degree extent of the entire source. Superposed on this global gradient are the much more abrupt gradients associated with the individual compact cores. These abrupt gradients reach magnitudes of 10–15 km s-1on scales of only 5–10 arcmin.

The FWHM velocity width varies between about 25 km s-1, in unconfused regions, and 40 km s-1, in those regions where different components overlap along the line-of-sight. (We comment below on the interpretation of these FWHM values, which, of course, represent upper limits to the in situ kinematics.) The column depths of the two principal cores are about $`10^{19.3}`$ cm-2; the diffuse envelope in which the cores are embedded has been traced to $`N_{\mathrm{HI}}`$ levels of about $`10^{18.0}`$ cm-2.

The panel on the upper left in Fig. 11 shows the variation of log($`N_{\mathrm{HI}}`$) with angular distance from the peak column density, separately for the Western and Eastern halves of the object. The column depths can be traced on both halves to levels somewhat less than $`10^{18}`$ cm-2, at an angular distance of some $`45^{}`$ from the emission centroid of the constant–$`\delta `$ slice. The panel on the upper left in Fig.13 represents a $`T_\mathrm{B}`$, $`v_{\mathrm{LSR}}`$ spectrum through the emission centroid. Overlaid on the spectrum is a Gaussian distribution corresponding to the $`v_{\mathrm{LSR}}`$, $`T_{\mathrm{max}}`$, and FWHM parameters listed in Table 2.

### 5.2 CHVC 100$``$49$``$383

CHVC 100$``$49$``$383, like the previous object also at an exceptionally extreme velocity, appears in the BB99 catalog as a particularly simple object. The confirming data sought by BB99 had involved additional data from the Dwingeloo 25–m telescope, Nyquist–sampled on a $`15^{}`$ grid. The Arecibo $`1{}_{}{}^{}\times 1^{}`$ mapping image shown in the upper left of Fig. 2 shows considerably more detail at this higher resolution and greater sensitivity: the brightest core is offset to the North-East of the source centroid, while secondary cores are distributed over a wider region and are all embedded in a common envelope.

The deeper cross–cut shown in the lower left of Fig. 2 scans the $`2^{}`$ strip along the declination, $`11{}_{}{}^{}19^{}`$, where the brightest core is most intense. There is only a modest velocity gradient along this cut, amounting to less than 10 km s-1. However, within the bright core there are rapid velocity reversals on scales of 5–10 arcmin. The velocity FWHM varies between about 25 and 35 km s-1. The core peaks at a column depth of $`10^{19.9}`$ cm-2. The envelope could be followed on the lower–$`\alpha `$ side to $`N_{\mathrm{HI}}`$ $`10^{18.3}`$ cm-2.

A noteworthy aspect of the morphology of this CHVC is that the off-center location of the brightest core component gives it the appearance of being more sharply bounded on one side than the other. The panel on the upper right of Fig. 11 shows the column density profiles to the East and West of the position of the bright core. While the Eastern profile shows a rapid decrease in $`N_{\mathrm{HI}}`$ to values below $`10^{18}`$ cm-2, corresponding to the actual edge of the source, we detect emission in excess of $`10^{18}`$ cm-2 out to the limit of our coverage in the West. Only by extending the coverage significantly further to the West would it become clear whether the WNM halo in this source is itself symmetric or not. Similar off-center locations of bright cores are seen in several of the other CHVCs described here, and are discussed further below. The spectrum corresponding to the peak of the deep driftscan and plotted on the upper right of Fig. 13 indicates that the CNM core shows substantial kinematic symmetry.

### 5.3 CHVC 148$``$32$``$144

CHVC 148$``$32$``$144 appears in the BB99 catalog as a simple, but somewhat elongated object, at a modest deviation velocity. The Arecibo $`1{}_{}{}^{}\times 1^{}`$ shallow image shown in the upper left of Fig. 3 does not fully encompass the CHVC; two prominent cores are evident in the region mapped, each having — as shown in the intensity–weighted velocity field image of the upper right panel — its own characteristic velocity. The cores are enclosed in a common envelope. The constant declination for the deeper $`2^{}`$ cross–cut was chosen at $`\delta =26{}_{}{}^{}22^{}`$, near one of the peaks in the shallow image.

The deep constant–declination driftscan through the CHVC is shown in the lower left of Fig. 3. In this direction, two intensity peaks are seen, the principal one centered near $`\alpha =2^\mathrm{h}26^\mathrm{m}40^\mathrm{s}`$ and $`v_{\mathrm{LSR}}`$$`=155`$ km s-1, and a secondary one near $`\alpha =2^\mathrm{h}23^\mathrm{m}30^\mathrm{s}`$ and $`v_{\mathrm{LSR}}`$$`=140`$ km s-1. It is plausible that the rather large velocity FWHM of 35 km s-1 tabulated for this object by BB99 on the basis of mapping with the Dwingeloo 25–m telescope refers to the accumulated kinematics contributed by several cores, each at a somewhat different centroid velocity. Thus the principal core measured in the Arecibo data has a FWHM of 17 km s-1, whereas the secondary core has a FWHM of about 25 km s-1.

The cross–cut slice through CHVC 148$``$32$``$144 shows that this object also is characterised by a spatial offset of the brighter core from the centroid of the underlying halo. Only on the Eastern side of the source does the coverage extend far enough to adequately sample the edge where it can be followed to column depths as low as some $`10^{17.7}`$ cm-2, at $`6^{}`$ from the bright core. The middle panel on the left of Fig. 13 shows a single–Gaussian fit to the spectral cut through the CHVC. The residuals from the single–Gaussian fit are substantially greater than the noise level, and are systematic in nature: evidently this CHVC has spatial structure which is essentially unresolved in angular extent at the limit of the Arecibo data.

### 5.4 CHVC 158$``$39$``$285

CHVC 158$``$39$``$285, at a substantial negative velocity, is one of the faintest in the catalog of BB99. The $`1{}_{}{}^{}\times 1^{}`$ two–dimensional Arecibo image shown in the upper left of Fig. 4 reveals a core of higher column density H emission, surrounded by additional sub-structure. The velocity field shown in the upper right of Fig. 4 shows a systematic kinematic gradient oriented East-West along the long axis of the brightest portion of the object.

The more sensitive observations constituting the $`2^{}`$ $`\alpha `$, $`v_{\mathrm{LSR}}`$ cross–cut through the core were made at $`\delta =16{}_{}{}^{}17{}_{}{}^{}30^{\prime \prime }`$. The $`N_{\mathrm{HI}}`$ value reaches some $`10^{19.4}`$ cm-2 at the peak of the core. $`N_{\mathrm{HI}}`$ in the diffuse envelope can be traced to about $`10^{17.6}`$ cm-2 on the Western side, where the centroid velocity is some 20 km s-1 different from the velocity characteristic of the peak of the core emission. The spatial coverage to the East is not sufficient to reach the edge of the envelope.

The position, velocity cross–cut reveals a clear kinematic gradient within the high column density core of this source, spanning a velocity difference of 30 km s-1, and possibly suggesting rotation in a flattened disk. Because of its interesting kinematic structure and limited angular extent, this core is a good candidate for synthesis mapping.

The panel on the middle right of Fig. 11 shows the $`N_{\mathrm{HI}}`$ profiles to the East and West of the position of peak column density. The two edge profiles are remarkably symmetric over the measured range of column density. The panel on the middle right of Fig. 13 shows that a single Gaussian accounts for much of the emission.

### 5.5 CHVC 186$``$31$``$206

CHVC 186$``$31$``$206, not previously identified as a high–velocity cloud, shows an elongated structure in the two–dimensional shallow image on the upper left of Fig. 5, with one principal core and at least two secondary ones, enclosed in a common envelope. The velocity field shown on the upper right of the figure shows that the different core substructures of this CHVC occur at different characteristic velocities, spanning some 12 km s-1. The velocity gradient oriented along the elongated axes of the feature might suggest rotation.

The declination for the longer–integration cross–cut was chosen to coincide with the peak of the CHVC flux, at $`6{}_{}{}^{}36{}_{}{}^{}19^{\prime \prime }`$. The emission along this slice peaks at a velocity of $`206`$ km s-1. The envelope can be followed to $`N_{\mathrm{HI}}`$ levels of somewhat less than $`10^{18}`$ cm-2.

The panel shown on the lower left of Fig. 11 indicates that while the Eastern edge of this CHVC has been delineated to below $`N_{\mathrm{HI}}`$=$`10^{18}`$ cm-2, the coverage has not been sufficient to fully characterize the Western edge. The fit by a single Gaussian shown in the corresponding panel of Fig. 13 shows residuals of greater amplitude than expected from the noise figure of the data: this object might have structure which remains unresolved in angle by the Arecibo beam. (The results obtained for the few CHVCs which have been observed both at Arecibo and with the WSRT show that it is emminently plausible to expect such unresolved structure at the Arecibo resolution.)

### 5.6 CHVC 186+19$``$114

CHVC 186+19$``$114 is one of the brighter ($`T_{\mathrm{max}}=1.03`$ K in the LDS) objects in the CHVC tabulation of BB99. The shallow Arecibo image shows an elongated structure, extending beyond the limits of the $`1{}_{}{}^{}\times 1^{}`$ map shown on the upper left of Fig. 6. The panel on the upper right of this figure shows that the centroid velocity on the lower–$`\delta `$ side is some 10 km s-1 less extreme than on the higher–$`\delta `$ side.

The declination for the $`2^{}`$ longer–integration cross–cut was chosen to coincide with the peak column density, at $`31{}_{}{}^{}52^{}`$. The stucture revealed by the observations along this slice is that of an elongated core. But the emission sampled in the constant–$`\delta `$ cut is probably not contributed by a single, simple core. The panel in the upper left of Fig. 12 shows the two opposing $`N_{\mathrm{HI}}`$ profiles which can be traced only down to about $`10^{18}`$ cm-2. The corresponding panel in Fig. 14 shows that the kinematics measured through the core can not be fit by a single Gaussian, but requires (at least) two features to account for the shape of the spectrum. The emission on the wings of the spectrum remaining unaccounted for by a two–component fit suggests that the core/halo morphology which seems characteristic of CHVCs imaged at high resolution by the WSRT pertains here too, with the Arecibo resolution only marginally sufficient to resolve the core/halo structure.

### 5.7 CHVC 198$``$12$``$103

CHVC 198$``$12$``$103 appears in the BB99 catalog as a moderately bright ($`T_{\mathrm{max}}=0.48`$ K), broad feature with a rather simple form. This impression remains under more detailed scrutiny with the Arecibo telescope. The $`1{}_{}{}^{}\times 1^{}`$ imaging data shown on the upper left of Fig. 7 reveals a highly asymmetric core component with some internal sub-structure. The core is characterized by a much sharper gradient to the East than to the West. The intensity–weighted velocity centroids of the two principal emission peaks, shown in the panel on the upper right of the figure, differ by only a few km s-1.

The longer–integration $`2^{}`$ cross–cut, shown in the lower left panel of Fig. 7, sliced the object at declination $`7{}_{}{}^{}54^{}`$, approximately through the central location of the feature. The $`\alpha `$, $`v_{\mathrm{LSR}}`$ slice shows both the strong asymmetry of the high $`N_{\mathrm{HI}}`$ core as well as the much more symmetric halo in which the core is embedded. The object as a whole displays a kinematic gradient, spanning $`v_{\mathrm{LSR}}`$ from $`102`$ km s-1 to $`110`$ km s-1.

The lopsided nature of the high $`N_{\mathrm{HI}}`$ core in this CHVC is evident in the upper right panel of Fig. 12, showing the edge profiles. The Eastern edge of the core is poorly resolved at the $`3.^{}5`$ resolution of the Arecibo data. However, it is remarkable that the low $`N_{\mathrm{HI}}`$ envelope of this core (below about $`10^{18.2}`$ cm-2) shows a high degree of symmetry. The kinematic structure, shown in the upper right of Fig. 14, is well fit by a single Gaussian, with FWHM of 22 km s-1. The object is clearly defined against its spatial and kinematic background, and so could be measured to column depths as low as $`10^{17.5}`$ cm-2.

### 5.8 CHVC 202+30+057

CHVC 202+30+057 is one of the first objects encountered at positive lsr velocities, as longitudes increase beyond that of the Galactic anticenter. It is found in the general $`(l,b,`$$`v_{\mathrm{LSR}}`$) region populated by the anomalous–velocity features studied first by Wannier & Wrixon (wawx72 (1972)) and Wannier et al. (wann72 (1972)). The two–dimensional shallow Arecibo image in the upper left of Fig. 8 shows a rather simple elongated structure, blending with H emission from the conventional Milky Way disk at the higher declinations.

The declination chosen for the deep $`2^{}`$ cross–cut, $`21{}_{}{}^{}46^{}`$, slices the peak $`N_{\mathrm{HI}}`$ concentration. The $`\alpha `$, $`v_{\mathrm{LSR}}`$ slice shows that the principal core can be adequately separated from Milky Way contamination. The feature is quite broad, with a velocity FWHM of about 25 km s-1, and little gradient over the region contributing most of the emission.

The $`N_{\mathrm{HI}}`$ profile for this object, plotted on the lower left of Fig. 12, reaches column densities below $`10^{18}`$ cm-2 toward the East, but the spatial coverage to the West is insufficient to delineate the true source extent. The kinematic behavior shown in Fig. 14 is rather straightforward. Although the single–Gaussian fit leaves a substantial residual on the low–velocity wing, it is not clear if this residual is due to contamination by gas in the disk of the Milky Way rather than to a broad halo of diffuse gas in the CHVC.

### 5.9 CHVC 204+30+075

CHVC 204+30+075 was cataloged by BB99 and subsequently was one of the six CHVCs imaged with the Westerbork Synthesis Radio Telescope by BB00. In the data from the Dwingeloo 25–m telescope the object is quite intense, with a peak temperature of 1.19 K, and the largest LDS flux, 305 Jy km s-1, of any of the cataloged CHVCs. The Arecibo two–dimensional mapping is shown in the upper left of Fig. 9: for this target, the Nyquist–sampled grid was extended in size to $`1.^{}5\times 1^{}`$ in order to accommodate essentially the entire CHVC within the boundaries of the accessible emission. (Note that the two contours near ($`08^\mathrm{h}26^\mathrm{m}`$, $`20{}_{}{}^{}10^{}`$) are a local minimum in $`N_{\mathrm{HI}}`$.) The Arecibo image shows two principal cores, in a common envelope. The distribution of the intensity–weighted velocity centroids shown in the panel on the upper right of Fig. 9 shows substantial structure, with the Northern core showing a particularly pronounced kinematic gradient.

The constant–declination deep–integration slice sampled a strip along $`\delta =20{}_{}{}^{}1{}_{}{}^{}30^{\prime \prime }`$. The H data on the strip allow tracking of the Eastern edge of the object down to about $`N_{\mathrm{HI}}`$ = $`10^{18}`$ cm-2, but the spatial coverage was not sufficient to delineate the Western edge beyond $`N_{\mathrm{HI}}`$ = $`10^{19.4}`$ cm-2.

The spatial and kinematic cuts through the centroid of this CHVC are shown in the panels on the lower right of Figs. 12 and 14, respectively. The Eastern $`N_{\mathrm{HI}}`$ profile is only marginally resolved with the $`3.^{}5`$ Arecibo beam. A single Gaussian of FWHM 26 km s-1 accounts for the spectral cross–cut through the centroid.

### 5.10 CHVC 230+61+165

CHVC 230+61+165 was cataloged by BB99 and was also one of the six CHVCs imaged with the WSRT by BB00. The primitive map of this object shown by BB99 was based on LDS data sampled on a $`0.^{}5`$ lattice; on such a coarse grid the core was essentially unresolved, but the map did show a hint of some surrounding emission. The shallow Nyquist–sampled Arecibo image shown in the upper left of Fig. 10 reveals several resolved cores, clearly embedded in a common envelope. The panel on the upper right shows that the several cores are each characterized by a somewhat different velocity centroid.

The longer–integration $`\alpha `$, $`v_{\mathrm{LSR}}`$ slice shown at the lower left of Fig. 10 was made along declination $`15{}_{}{}^{}28^{}`$, a direction crossing the CHVC near the centroid of the emission from the object as a whole, but passing through one of the minor cores. The position, velocity map shows a knot of emission, centered near 156 km s-1, with little variation in either centroid velocity or in velocity FWHM.

The panels on the lower right of Figs. 11 and 13 show the spatial and kinematic cross sections, respectively, through the centroid of the emission sampled in the longer–integration slice. Although the halo may be detected below $`N_{\mathrm{HI}}`$ = $`10^{18}`$ cm-2 further to the East than the West this is very near the noise floor for this field. The single–Gaussian fit, although roughly adequate in shape, leaves residuals above the noise level which are suggestive of unresolved detailed structure.

## 6 Insights based on comparison of the Arecibo and WSRT results for two CHVCs

It is instructive to compare the properties of CHVCs revealed by the Arecibo filled–aperture telescope with those revealed by the Westerbork synthesis instrument. We anticipate in this section the general conclusion that neither a large filled–aperture antenna such as the Arecibo one nor a synthesis instrument such as the WSRT will, alone, suffice to reveal the details of the core/halo morphology which pertains to the CHVCs. The picture which has emerged from the total of eight CHVCs imaged with the WSRT by Wakker & Schwarz (wakk91b (1991)) and by BB00 is that of compact cores with angular sizes typically of a few arcmin. The H linewidths of the cores are rather narrow (usually less than 10 km s-1 FWHM) and they often display significant velocity gradients along the long dimension of an elliptical extent. At resolutions coarser than the angular size of the cores, such cores will, of course, remain unresolved.

CHVC 204+30+075 and CHVC 230+61+165 have now been observed at both the WSRT and at Arecibo. The CNM cores of these objects were imaged by BB00 using the WSRT at 28 arcsec angular resolution; the 3.5–arcmin resolution of the Arecibo data is insufficient to resolve the cold knots. On the other hand, the interferometer does not detect the diffuse halos which so clearly envelop the objects studied in the Arecibo data. More important is the complete change of character of the H line profiles when full sensitivity to the diffuse halos is present, as in the Arecibo total–power data presented here. As seen in the figures, as well as in Table 2, most lines–of–sight are dominated by the emission from the diffuse halos, leading to much broader total H linewidths of about 25 km s-1 FWHM. The velocity gradients of individual cores are diluted by this background contribution to such an extent that they can often not even be discerned.

The left–hand panel of Fig. 15 shows the H  column density distribution in CHVC 204+30+075 derived from the WSRT data at an angular resolution of 1 arcmin (from BB00) overlaid on the Arecibo data. Effectively none of the diffuse emission is detected in the WSRT data. Consequently, the velocity field and spectra shown in Fig. 8 of BB00 are dramatically different from those shown in Fig. 9. To affirm that the WSRT $`N_{\mathrm{HI}}`$ results are compatible with those from Arecibo requires the realization that the WSRT has not responded to the diffuse halo prominently seen enveloping the cores in the Arecibo data, whereas the Arecibo angular resolution has not been sufficient to reveal the core details. The comparison of the column density distribution of H in CHVC 230+61+165 made with the WSRT and Arecibo telescopes, shown in the right–hand panel of Fig. 15, leads to similar conclusions. Only the compact CNM cores, with their narrow emission lines, are detected in the synthesis data; the total power data, on the other hand, are completely dominated by the diffuse, broader–linewidth, WNM halos.

This same effect has substantial implications for the interpretation of H observations of some nearby spiral galaxies. Dickey et al. (dick90 (1990)) and Rownd et al. (rown94 (1994)) have measured the radial distribution of H linewidths in the galaxies NGC 1068 and NGC 5474 from VLA imaging data, and quote velocity dispersions as low as 6 km s-1 (or 14 km s-1 FWHM) in the outer disks of these systems (at $`N_{\mathrm{HI}}`$$`10^{20}`$ cm-2). However, the VLA observations only detected about half of the total H flux in these galaxies. It is clear that the missing flux is in a smoothly distributed component — hence its non–detection in the synthesis data — and quite likely that it represents a WNM component with the broader intrinsic linewidth (of about 25 km s-1 FWHM) we have measured here. This conjecture is supported by the Arecibo observations of M33 of Corbelli et al. (corb89 (1989)), who consistently find H linewidths of about 25 km s-1 FWHM (whenever the signal–to–noise ratio was adequate) at the largest detected radii of that galaxy. The generality of this conclusion depends, of course, on the match of interferometer sensitivity to diffuse structures in the specific object under study. From our resolved detection of the warm halos in the Arecibo data we can make concrete estimates of the required brightness sensitivity. Peak brightnesses of the WNM halos seen in Figs. 110 are between 20 and 50 mK over about 20 km s-1. Direct WNM detection therefore requires a brightness temperature RMS, $`d`$T$`{}_{B}{}^{}<`$ 10 mK over 20 km s-1for emission that fills the beam. For comparison, a 12 hour integration with the VLA D configuration provides a theoretical RMS of 60 mK over 20 km s-1 in a naturally weighted image (Perley perl00 (2000)) for which the beamsize is about 65 arcsec FWHM. If a physical resolution of 3 kpc were required, this beamsize would suffice out to a distance of 10 Mpc. However, the 60 mK RMS of a 12 hour observation would only ever allow detection of the CNM peaks and the very brightest portions of an underlying WNM.

The WSRT data have indicated that the CHVC cores do not have an intrinsically Gaussian spatial or kinematic form, either when viewed individually or as an ensemble of several cores within one CHVC halo. The accuracy of a single–Gaussian fit to the Arecibo cross–cuts is not at odds with this conclusion, if one recognizes that it is predominantly the flux from the halo which is being fit. If the cross–cut emission were being contributed by a collection of narrow–linewidth CNM cores, kinematically spanning some 20 km s-1, then the cross–cut spectra would be characterized by the same FWHM as has been observed, but the wings of the spectrum would be steep; in fact, the spectral wings are consistent with WNM linewidths.

Furthermore, the conclusion which we have been able to draw from the Arecibo observations reported here, namely that the column depths in the outer regions of the CHVCs fall off as an exponential with radius, implies that for sensitivity–limited data, both the measured sizes and fluxes will depend on the sensitivity and resolution employed. (We note in this regard that it is reasonable to expect that observations, made with currently available instrumental parameters, of any analogous objects which might be located beyond the Local Group would be severely sensitivity limited.) To illustrate this point with a concrete example, we have plotted the cumulated fractional flux as function of radius in Fig. 11 for CHVC 158$``$39$``$285, assuming that the measured radial profile for this object has azimuthal symmetry. Resolved observations of this object (with an angular resolution at least as good as 500 arcsec) with a limiting column density sensitivity of $`10^{19}`$cm-2 would measure a source radius of about 1000 arcsec and only detect some 50% of the total flux density. Only with a resolved column density sensitivity of $`10^{18}`$cm-2 or better would more than 90% of the flux density be recovered. If the source is not well–resolved by the telescope beam, then the total flux per beam must be evaluated and compared with the mass sensitivity of the observation over the typical total source linewidth. These considerations are crucial in assessing the detectability of a population of CHVCs when viewed at large distances.

## 7 Source symmetries and asymmetries

The sensitive, high-resolution cross-cuts described in §5 provide the opportunity for studying the edge profiles of each source in our sample down to very low column densities as well as their degree of reflection-symmetry. Since only a single positional angle (along a line of constant declination) has been observed to this depth in each source we are very sensitive to the particular sub-structures we happen to encounter. If instead we were able to employ azimuthal averaging from a fully-sampled large-area map, we would expect such sub-structures to average away to a large extent. Nonetheless, some trends are worthy of discussion on the basis of this limited source sampling.

Firstly, the high column density regions ($`N_{\mathrm{HI}}`$$`>10^{18.5}`$cm-2) of each source, which we term cores, show a high degree of structure. Typically, several of such cores are found in each source, but even if there is only one prominent core component it is not necessarily accurately centered within the diffuse low column density halo. Prominent cores which we sample that are substantially off-center are seen in CHVC 100$``$49$``$383, CHVC 148$``$32$``$144 and CHVC 204$`+`$30$`+`$075. In these cases, the two degree scan length of our deep cross-cut does not extend to both edges of the source, making it impossible to comment on the degree of symmetry seen in the underlying halo component. Even in less extreme cases, our spatial coverage is sometimes insufficient to extend beyond the range of detectable emission on at least one side of the source, so that comparisons can only be made over a limited range of column densities.

The comparison of the “East” and “West” $`N_{\mathrm{HI}}`$ profiles in Figs.1112 is shown for the range of column densities that is above the noise floor ($`>2\sigma `$) in each case. The origin of the “radius” axis in these figures was arbitrarily chosen to correspond to the location of peak column density along the single cross-cut. Positive or negative shifts in position are therefore allowed, and source symmetry should be judged on the basis of agreement in the local slope of the two profiles rather than on their “radial” position. With these caveats in mind, it becomes clear that substantial asymmetries appear to be confined to the regions of moderately high column density ($`N_{\mathrm{HI}}`$$`>10^{18.5}`$cm-2), while below this column density a high degree of reflection-symmetry is present in all cases. Even those sources that have extreme asymmetries at $`N_{\mathrm{HI}}`$ $`>10^{19}`$cm-2, like CHVC 186$``$31$``$206 and CHVC 198$``$12$``$103, have effectively identical edge profiles below $`N_{\mathrm{HI}}`$ $`>10^{18.2}`$cm-2.

The large disparity in source symmetry at high and low $`N_{\mathrm{HI}}`$ seen in some sources, particularly in CHVC 198$``$12$``$103, has important implications for the physical conditions in and around these sources. While substantial asymmetry of the high $`N_{\mathrm{HI}}`$ regions might be interpreted as implying an externally induced ram pressure origin (eg. Brüns et al. (brun00 (2000)), this seems to be ruled out by the high degree of symmetry seen in the low $`N_{\mathrm{HI}}`$ envelopes. If the core asymmetries were due to such an external influence, then the asymmetries should be even more severe in the diffuse halos, which clearly is not the case.

Significant asymmetries at high column density levels are also commonly observed in external galaxies. Richter & Sancisi (rich94 (1994)) concluded that at least 50% of all spiral galaxies have strong or mild asymmetries based on analysis of their integrated H  line profiles. Swaters (swat99 (1999)) extended this analysis with the assessment of asymmetry in a sample of 73 late-type dwarf galaxies. He finds strong asymmetires in 34% of his sample and weak asymmetries in a further 16%. The incidence of significant asymmetry at high $`N_{\mathrm{HI}}`$ in our sample of CHVCs is about 6 out of 10 based on our limited spatial sampling. This is quite comparable to the rate of incidence seen in nearby galaxies.

## 8 3–D morphology and distance

The reflection-symmetry of CHVC edge profiles at low column densities together with the roughly circular appearance of each source at low angular resolution ($``$30 arcmin) imply that the diffuse halo component may have a substantial degree of spherical symmetry. These properties suggest a method to constrain the three–dimensional morphology and possible distances of these objects. If we consider an intrinsically exponential distribution of atomic volume density in the diffuse WNM halos of the CHVCs with spherical symmetry of the form

$$n_\mathrm{H}(r)=n_\mathrm{o}e^{r/h_B}$$
(1)
in terms of the radial distance, $`r`$, and exponential scale length, $`h_B`$, it is possible to calculate the corresponding projected distribution of H column density,

$$N_{\mathrm{HI}}(r)=2h_Bn_\mathrm{o}\left[\frac{r}{h}K_1\left(\frac{r}{h_B}\right)\right],$$
(2)
where $`K_1`$ is the modified Bessel function of order 1. This result follows from the related calculation of the edge–on appearance of an exponential stellar disk by Van der Kruit & Searle (vand81 (1981)).

The projected distribution of $`N_{\mathrm{HI}}`$ given by eqn. 2 is approximately exponential beyond a few scale–lengths, but flattens significantly toward small radii. The correspondence between these Bessel function scaleheights, $`h_B`$, and the most similar 1-D exponential scaleheights, $`h_e`$, (over the interval $`3h_B<r<6h_B`$) is about $`h_e`$ = 1.1 $`h_B`$. $`N_{\mathrm{HI}}`$ profiles of the form given by eqn.2 have been overlaid on the data shown in Figs. 11 and 12. Profiles of this type provide a reasonably good description of the observed profiles and allow accurate assessment of the total atomic column density, $`N_{\mathrm{HI}}`$(0), and intrinsic scale–length, $`h_B`$, of the WNM halos under the assumption of crude spherical symmetry. Even in those cases where there is some asymmetry between the Eastern and Western halves of the profile at high $`N_{\mathrm{HI}}`$, the peak $`N_{\mathrm{HI}}`$ value of the halo and the scale–length at large radii are well–defined. Due to the large offset of the bright core location from the centroid of the underlying halo in CHVC 100$``$49$``$383, CHVC 148$``$32$``$144, and CHVC 204+30+075 only one of the edge profiles was observed in our cross-cut. However, even for these sources, the well-sampled edge of the source shows good correspondence with profiles of this form. For the sources CHVC 092$``$39$``$367, CHVC 202$`+`$30$`+`$057, and CHVC 204$`+`$30$`+`$075, the calculated $`N_{\mathrm{HI}}`$ profiles were given a linear offset from the origin in radius, since the transition from cool cores to warm halos was significantly offset from the direction that displayed the peak column density. The displayed values of the total atomic column density, $`N_{\mathrm{HI}}`$(0), and scale-length, $`h_B`$, are listed in Table 2 for the seven sources in which both Eastern and Western edge profiles were sampled. Significantly worse correspondence of the profiles with the data is found for variations of 0.1 dex in log($`N_{\mathrm{HI}}`$) and 50 arcsec in $`h`$. We find mean values of $`N_{\mathrm{HI}}`$(0)$`=4.1\pm 3.2\times 10^{19}`$ cm-2 and $`h=420\pm 90`$ arcsec averaged over the 7 tabulated objects.

BB00 considered the physical conditions necessary for the shielding and condensation of CNM cores within WNM halos. While thermal pressures, $`P/\mathrm{k}`$, of $``$2000 cm-3 K are found in the local mid–plane of the Galaxy, these are expected to decline dramatically with height (and Galactocentric radius), falling to values below about 100 cm-3 K beyond about 20 kpc (Wolfire et al. wolf95b (1995)). The calculations presented in Wolfire et al. suggest that for a wide range of physical conditions (metal abundance, radiation field and dust content) the transition from a two phase ISM to a WNM should occur near a thermal pressure of $`P/\mathrm{k}`$ 100 cm-3 K. Only in the case of effectively primordial metal abundance is a large departure expected from this nominal transition pressure, in the sense of a much higher required thermal pressure. From the ubiquitous detection of metal line systems in quasar absorption line studies as well as a metallicity estimate for CHVC125+41$``$207 (BB00) it seems likely that a metal abundance of about 0.1 solar is appropriate for the CHVCs. Assuming a nominal thermal pressure of the core/halo interface in CHVCs allows calculation of the central volume density, $`n_o`$, since the kinetic temperature is known from the observed linewidths to be $`T_\mathrm{k}`$ = 104 K. The distance of each object with a measured edge profile can then be estimated by assuming an equal extent in the plane of the sky and along the line-of-sight from,

$$D=\frac{N_{\mathrm{HI}}(0)}{2hn_o}=\frac{N_{\mathrm{HI}}(0)\mathrm{k}T}{2hP},$$
(3)
or

$$D=335\left(\frac{N_{\mathrm{HI}}(0)}{10^{19}\mathrm{cm}^2}\right)\left(\frac{P/\mathrm{k}}{100\mathrm{cm}^3\mathrm{K}}\right)^1\left(\frac{h}{100^{\prime \prime }}\right)^1\mathrm{kpc}.$$
(4)
These estimated distances are listed in Table 2 and vary between 150 and 850 kpc, with a mean of 400$`\pm `$280 kpc.

A similar method of distance estimation for HVCs was suggested by Ferrara & Field (ferr94 (1994)), although in their treatment a uniform volume density of the gas was assumed, which complicates the identification of the angular size that should be related to the line–of–sight depth. The distances to several of the diffuse HVC complexes have been found, using more direct methods (e.g. van Woerden et al. woer99 (1999)), to lie in the range of several to several tens of kpc. But the distinctions between the diffuse HVC complexes and the population of compact, isolated CHVCs are sufficiently robust, and the distance parameter so crucial, that investigations of alternative measures of distance are required. We note that the WSRT interferometric imaging carried out by Wakker & Schwarz (wakk91c (1991)) towards two CHVCs and along representative lines–of–sight towards four HVC complexes revealed that the two object classes have very different properties. A much larger fraction of the object flux was recovered in the WSRT imaging of the CHVCs and the detected cool cores are much more subject to beam dilution effects when observed with a coarser beam. Both of these properties led Wakker & Schwarz to conclude that the CHVCs were significantly more distant than the HVC complexes.

It is important to stress that we have considered only the distribution of the observed atomic gas density in our analysis. It is likely that the edges of the atomic distribution are accompanied by an increasing proportion of ionized gas due to photoionization by external radiation. For this reason, the total gas density (the sum of atomic and ionized components) will probably be significantly shallower than the distributions shown here. However, the method of distance estimation discussed above is not effected in a systematic way by considering only the atomic rather than the total gas distribution. We only assume an approximate spherical symmetry of the atomic component, which is still expected to be the case.

We can calibrate the edge-profile method of distance determination by direct comparison with the observed edge–profiles of low mass galaxies. A comprehensive study of 73 late–type dwarf galaxies based on a uniform database has recently been presented by Swaters (swat99 (1999)). Optical and H  properties, including the exponential scale-lengths of H  in the outer disks are derived for this entire sample. We have taken all of the well–resolved, high signal–to–noise data for the lowest mass systems studied by Swaters by selecting the galaxies nearer than 10 Mpc, with line profile half–widths ($`W_{50}`$) less than 100 km s-1, and average H  surface density within 3.2 optical disk scale–lengths ($`<\mathrm{\Sigma }_{\mathrm{HI}}>_{3.2h}`$) greater than 2.5 M$`_{}`$pc-2. The exponential scale–length fit to the outer disk H  for the 15 selected galaxies is plotted against the line profile half-width in the left–hand panel of Fig. 16. There is only modest variation in the outer disk scale–lengths and no apparent variation with profile line–width. The mean outer disk scale-length is $`h_e`$ = 11.7$`\pm `$4.4 kpc. If we adopt this mean outer disk scale-length as a constant for all low mass galaxies and calculate the corresponding distances implied by $`h_e`$ in angular units, we recover the accepted galaxy distances to better than a factor of two, as shown in the right-hand panel of Fig.16. The corresponding value of $`h_B`$ for a Bessel function scale–length is $`h_B`$ = 10.6$`\pm `$4.0 kpc. Applying this same yard–stick to our measurements of halo scale–length in the CHVCs yields the distance estimates in the last column of Table 2. The derived distances vary between 320 and 730 kpc, with a mean of 500$`\pm `$130 kpc, and show agreement to within about a factor of two with our estimates from eqn. 4.

## 9 Discussion and conclusions

The Arecibo imaging reported here has demonstrated that a nested core/halo geometry is characteristic of the targeted CHVCs, and allows the direct resolved detection of the halo component for the first time in these compact objects. The compact cores identified in our earlier WSRT interferometric data were only marginally resolved at angular resolutions of $`2^{}`$ or less; such cores would remain severely unresolved in the Arecibo beam. On the other hand, the signal from diffuse halo material is effectively undetected in the synthesis data and can only be studied by deep total–power imaging.

The measured FWHM linewidths in the halos are typically in the range 20 to 25 km s-1. The various circumstances, in particular blending, which would render this measure an upper limit to the thermal broadening are shown to be not especially important by the accuracy of the single–Gaussian spectral fits, particularly in the wings of the spectra. The residuals of the single–Gaussian fits are in some cases in excess of the rms noise of some 10 mK at a velocity resolution of 1 km s-1. However, the dimples evident in the profiles imply unresolved structure in the ensemble of cores. The general shape of the profile, and particularly the form of the spectral wings, is consistent with thermal emission from H at a kinetic temperature near $`10^4`$ K. Thus these observations provide evidence that the halos of the CHVCs observed are comprised of gas in the WNM phase, hypothesized as providing the neutral shielding column required if the CNM cores are to remain stable in the presence of an ionizing radiation field.

A kinematic gradient aligned with the elongation of the object was observed in several CHVC cores, most notably in CHVC 158$``$39$``$285 and CHVC 186$``$31$``$206. Since the long–integration Arecibo data was limited to a single East–West cross–cut that only rarely coincides with the direction of elongation, this conclusion can not be stated firmly for all of the objects observed. The kinematic gradients are compatible with the expectation of slow rotation in a flattened disk system, and are consistent with the modeling which BB00 applied to two well–resolved cores in CHVC 204+30+075, showing that these cases can be described by rotation curves of Navarro et al. (nava97 (1997)) cold dark matter halos of mass about $`10^8`$ M.

The halos and the cores are evidently kinematically decoupled, in the sense that a core region may show a systematic kinematic gradient when the halo does not, but remains centered on the systemic velocity of the CHVC. CHVC 158$``$39$``$285 is a particular example of this situation (although the same effect can also be seen in CHVC 100$``$48$``$383 and CHVC 186$``$31$``$206), which is compatible with rotation but seems difficult to reconcile with an external cause for the kinematic distortion, for example by a tidal shear. An external force would be expected to produce a more severe distortion of the diffuse envelopes than on the dense cores. A tidal shear or other externally caused distortion seems unlikely for several other reasons, including the apparent isolation of the CHVCs and the evidence for a Local Group deployment.

Substantial asymmetries characterize the high column density ($`N_{\mathrm{HI}}`$$`>10^{18.5}`$cm-2) portions of the H distributions in 6 out of 10 of the CHVCs imaged. Particularly striking examples of this high $`N_{\mathrm{HI}}`$ lopsidedness are provided by CHVC 100$``$49$``$383, CHVC 148$``$32$``$144, and CHVC 198$``$12$``$103. This rate of occurence of asymmetry is comparable to the 50% found in large samples of nearby galaxies by Richter & Sancisi (rich94 (1994)) and Swaters (swat99 (1999)). In contrast, the low column density ($`N_{\mathrm{HI}}`$$`<10^{18.5}`$cm-2) portions of the edge profiles display a very high degree of reflection–symmetry in all cases where our spatial coverage extends to these levels. Even the extreme source, CHVC 198$``$12$``$103, displays essentially identical edge profiles below $`N_{\mathrm{HI}}`$ $`=10^{18.2}`$cm-2. The high degree of symmetry found in the low $`N_{\mathrm{HI}}`$ halos relative to the high $`N_{\mathrm{HI}}`$ cores argues against external mechanisms, like ram–pressure confinement, as the cause of the asymmetries seen in the cores.

The $`N_{\mathrm{HI}}`$ profiles of the warm halos plotted in Fig. 11 and 12 can be described well, by the sky–plane projection of a spherical exponential distribution of H volume density. In the most sensitive cross-cuts the exponential edge profile can be tracked down to $`N_{\mathrm{HI}}`$ $`=10^{17.5}`$cm-2. Thus, the measured size and total flux of the CHVCs will be dependent on the resolution and on the sensitivity of the observation. This point is of particular concern when considering searches for CHVC counterparts which might be associated with galaxies or groups of galaxies beyond the Local Group.

The distinctive halo profiles also allow estimation of the peak halo column density and exponential scale–length in each object. When combined with an estimate of the nominal thermal pressure at the core/halo interface, the distance to each object can be derived by assuming approximate spherical symmetry. Seven of the ten objects studied indicate distances which vary between 150 and 850 kpc, with a mean of 400$`\pm `$280 kpc. If instead we adopt the mean observed outer disk exponential scale–length of about 11 kpc found in a sample of nearby late–type dwarf galaxies, the same set of objects yield consistent distances that vary between 320 and 730 kpc with a mean of 500$`\pm `$130 kpc.

## 10 Summary

The Arecibo imaging of ten CHVCs, combined with the BB00 WSRT imaging, lead to the following conclusions:

$``$ The compact high–velocity clouds display a core/halo morphology.

$``$ The CNM of the cores of CHVCs are better revealed in synthesis data than in filled–aperture data because of their small angular scales.

$``$ The WNM of the diffuse halos of CHVCs are better revealed in filled–aperture data than in synthesis data because of their diffuse morphology and large angular sizes.

$``$ The FWHM linewidth of the CHVC halo gas is typically 25 km s-1, consistent with the expected WNM thermal linewidth of 104 K gas.

$``$ Some of the cores exhibit a kinematic gradient, consistent with rotation.

$``$ The differing kinematics of the cores and the halos is consistent with the cores being kinematically decoupled from the halos.

$``$ Since the halos do not commonly share the kinematic gradient of cores, an external origin of the gradient is unlikely.

$``$ 60% of the CHVCs studied display significant asymmetries in the H distribution at high column density ($`N_{\mathrm{HI}}`$$`>10^{18.5}`$cm-2).

$``$ There is a high degree of reflection-symmetry in the low column density ($`N_{\mathrm{HI}}`$$`<10^{18.5}`$cm-2) edge profiles in all seven cases where the spatial coverage extends to these levels.

$``$ The presence of a highly symmetric halo exterior to an asymmetric core argues against external mechanisms for producing the core asymmetry.

$``$ The H column–density profiles of the CHVC halos are consistent with the sky–plane projection of a spherical exponential distribution of H volume density.

$``$ Assuming a nominal thermal pressure for the CNM/WNM interface and approximate spherical symmetry of the halos, distance estimates for individual objects can be made. These lie in the range 150 to 850 kpc.

$``$ Assuming a “standard” outer-disk scale-height for low mass self-gravitating systems (as observed in nearby dwarf galaxies) allows distance estimates in the range 320 to 730 kpc to be made.

###### Acknowledgements.

We are grateful to P. Perillat for assistance during our Arecibo observing session, to T.M. Bania for communications regarding the calibration of the data, to C. Salter and E. Howell for information regarding the beamwidth and sidelobe characterisitics, and to the referee, J. Kerp, for constructive comments. The Arecibo Observatory is part of the National Astronomy and Ionosphere Center, which is operated by Cornell University under a cooperative agreement with the National Science Foundation.


format: text

text:
# 1 Basic Formulae

## 1 Basic Formulae

Fifteen years ago the method based on the expansion of propagators in Gegenbauer series (see ) has been introduced in . One has shown  that by this method the analytical evaluation of counterterms in the minimal subtraction scheme at the 4-loop level in any model and for any composite operator was indeed possible. The Gegenbauer Polynomial (GP) technique has been applied successfully for propagator-type Feynman diagrams (FD) in many calculations (see ). In the present paper we consider a development of the GP technique (obtained in ) and the application of the results in .

Throughout the paper we use the following notation. The use of dimensional regularization is assumed. All the calculations are performed in the space of dimension $`D=42\epsilon `$. Note that contrary to  we analyze FD directly in momentum $`x`$-space which allows us to avoid the appearance of Bessel functions. Because we consider here only propagator-type massless FD, we know their dependence on a single external momentum beforehand. The point of interest is the coefficient function $`C_f`$, which depends on $`D=42\epsilon `$ and is a Laurent series in $`\epsilon `$.

1. First of all, we present useful formulae to use of Gegenbauer polynomials. Following , $`D`$-space integration can be represented in the form

$$d^Dx=\frac{1}{2}S_{D1}(x^2)^\lambda dx^2d\widehat{x}(\lambda =D/21),$$

where $`\widehat{x}=\stackrel{}{x}/\sqrt{x^2}`$, and $`S_{D1}=2\pi ^{\lambda +1}/\mathrm{\Gamma }(\lambda +1)`$ is the surface of the unit hypersphere in $`R_D`$. The Gegenbauer polynomials $`C_n^\delta (t)`$ are defined as

$`(12rt+r^2)^\delta ={\displaystyle \underset{n=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}C_n^\delta (t)r^n(r1),C_n^\delta (1)={\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }(n+2\delta )}{n!\mathrm{\Gamma }(2\delta )}},`$ (1)
whence the expansion for the propagator is:

$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{(x_1x_2)^{2\delta }}}={\displaystyle \underset{n=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}C_n^\delta (\widehat{x_1}\widehat{x_2})[{\displaystyle \frac{(x_1^2)^{n/2}}{(x_2^2)^{n/2+\delta }}}\mathrm{\Theta }(x_2^2x_1^2)+(x_1^2x_2^2)],`$ (2)
where

$$\mathrm{\Theta }(y)=\{\begin{array}{cc}\hfill 1,& \text{ if }y0\hfill \\ \hfill 0,& \text{ if }y<0\hfill \end{array}$$

Orthogonality of the Gegenbauer polynomials $`C_n^\lambda (x)`$ is expressed by the equation (see )

$`{\displaystyle C_n^\lambda (\widehat{x_1}\widehat{x_2})C_m^\lambda (\widehat{x_2}\widehat{x_3})𝑑\widehat{x_2}}={\displaystyle \frac{\lambda }{n+\lambda }}\delta _n^mC_n^\lambda (\widehat{x_1}\widehat{x_3}),`$ (3)
where $`\delta _n^m`$ is the Kronecker symbol.

The following formulae are useful (see ):

$`C_n^\delta (x)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{p0}{}}{\displaystyle \frac{(2x)^{n2p}(1)^p\mathrm{\Gamma }(np+\delta )}{(n2p)!p!\mathrm{\Gamma }(\delta )}}\text{ and }`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{(2x)^n}{n!}}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{p0}{}}C_{n2p}^\delta (x){\displaystyle \frac{(n2p+\delta )\mathrm{\Gamma }(\delta )}{p!\mathrm{\Gamma }(np+\delta +1)}}`$ (4)
Substituting the latter equation from (4) for $`\delta =\lambda `$ to the first one, we have the following equation after the separate analyses at odd and even $`n`$:

$`C_n^\delta (x)={\displaystyle \underset{k=0}{\overset{[n/2]}{}}}C_{n2p}^\lambda (x){\displaystyle \frac{(n2k+\lambda )\mathrm{\Gamma }(\lambda )}{k!\mathrm{\Gamma }(\delta )}}{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }(n+\delta k)\mathrm{\Gamma }(k+\delta \lambda )}{\mathrm{\Gamma }(n+\lambda +1k)\mathrm{\Gamma }(\delta \lambda )}}`$ (5)
2. Following  we introduce the traceless product (TP) $`x^{\mu _1\mathrm{}\mu _n}`$ connected with the usual product $`x^{\mu _1}\mathrm{}x^{\mu _n}`$ by the following equations

$`x^{\mu _1\mathrm{}\mu _n}`$ $`=`$ $`\widehat{S}{\displaystyle \underset{p0}{}}{\displaystyle \frac{n!(1)^p\mathrm{\Gamma }(np+\lambda )}{2^{2p}p!(n2p)!\mathrm{\Gamma }(n+\lambda )}}g^{\mu _1\mu _2}\mathrm{}g^{\mu _{2p1}\mu _{2p}}x^{2p}x^{\mu _{2p+1}}\mathrm{}x^{\mu _n}`$
$`x^{\mu _1}\mathrm{}x^{\mu _n}`$ $`=`$ $`\widehat{S}{\displaystyle \underset{p0}{}}{\displaystyle \frac{n!\mathrm{\Gamma }(n2p+\lambda +1)}{(2)^{2p}p!(n2p)!\mathrm{\Gamma }(np+\lambda +1)}}g^{\mu _1\mu _2}\mathrm{}g^{\mu _{2p1}\mu _{2p}}x^{2p}x^{\mu _{2p+1}\mathrm{}\mu _n}`$ (6)
Comparing Eqs.(4) and (6), we obtain the following relations between TP and GP

$`z^{\mu _1\mathrm{}\mu _n}x^{\mu _1\mathrm{}\mu _n}={\displaystyle \frac{n!\mathrm{\Gamma }(\lambda )}{2^n\mathrm{\Gamma }(n+\lambda )}}C_n^\lambda (\widehat{x}\widehat{z})(x^2z^2)^{n/2},x^{\mu _1\mathrm{}\mu _n}x^{\mu _1\mathrm{}\mu _n}={\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }(n+2\lambda )\mathrm{\Gamma }(\lambda )}{2^n\mathrm{\Gamma }(2\lambda )\mathrm{\Gamma }(n+\lambda )}}x^{2n}`$ (7)
We give also the simple but quite useful conditions:

$`z^{\mu _1\mathrm{}\mu _n}x^{\mu _1\mathrm{}\mu _n}=z^{\mu _1}\mathrm{}z^{\mu _n}x^{\mu _1\mathrm{}\mu _n}=z^{\mu _1\mathrm{}\mu _n}x^{\mu _1}\mathrm{}x^{\mu _n},`$ (8)
which follow immediately from the TP definition: $`g^{\mu _i\mu _j}x^{\mu _1\mathrm{}\mu _i\mathrm{}\mu _j\mathrm{}\mu _n}=0`$.

The use of the TP $`x^{\mu _1\mathrm{}\mu _n}`$ makes it possible to ignore terms of the type $`g^{\mu _i\mu _j}`$ that arise upon integration: they can be readily recovered from the general structure of the TP. Therefore, in the process of integration it is only necessary to follow the coefficient of the leading term $`x^{\mu _1}\mathrm{}x^{\mu _n}`$. The rules to integrate FD containing TP can be found, for example in . For a loop we have (hereafter $`Dx(d^Dx)/(2\pi )^D`$) 111The Eq.(9) has been used in  for calculations of the moments of structure functions of deep inelastic scattering.:

$`{\displaystyle Dx\frac{x^{\mu _1\mathrm{}\mu _n}}{x^{2\alpha }(xy)^{2\beta }}}={\displaystyle \frac{1}{(4\pi )^{D/2}}}{\displaystyle \frac{y^{\mu _1\mathrm{}\mu _n}}{y^{2(\alpha +\beta \lambda 1)}}}A^{n,0}(\alpha ,\beta ),`$ (9)
where

$$A^{n,m}(\alpha ,\beta )=\frac{a_n(\alpha )a_m(\beta )}{a_{n+m}(\alpha +\beta \lambda 1)}\text{ and }a_n(\alpha )=\frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }(D/2\alpha +n)}{\mathrm{\Gamma }(\alpha )}$$

Note that in our analysis it is necessary to consider more complicate cases of integration, when the integrand contains $`\mathrm{\Theta }`$ functions. Indeed, using the Eqs.(2) and (7), we can represent the propagator $`(x_1x_2)^{2\lambda }`$ into the following form 222In the case of the propagator $`(x_1x_2)^{2\delta }`$ with $`\delta \lambda `$ we should use also Eq.(5).:

$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{(x_1x_2)^{2\lambda }}}={\displaystyle \underset{n=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{2^n\mathrm{\Gamma }(n+\lambda )}{n!\mathrm{\Gamma }(\lambda )}}x_1^{\mu _1\mathrm{}\mu _n}x_2^{\mu _1\mathrm{}\mu _n}[{\displaystyle \frac{1}{x_2^{2(\lambda +n)}}}\mathrm{\Theta }(x_2^2x_1^2)+(x_1^2x_2^2)]`$ (10)
Using the GP properties from previous subsection and the connection (7) between GP and TP, we obtain the rules for calculating FD with the $`\mathrm{\Theta }`$-terms and TP.

3. The rules have the following form:

$`{\displaystyle Dx\frac{x^{\mu _1\mathrm{}\mu _n}}{x^{2\alpha }(xy)^{2\beta }}\mathrm{\Theta }(x^2y^2)}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{(4\pi )^{D/2}}}{\displaystyle \frac{y^{\mu _1\mathrm{}\mu _n}}{y^{2(\alpha +\beta \lambda 1)}}}{\displaystyle \underset{m=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{B(m,n|\beta ,\lambda )}{m+\alpha +\beta \lambda 1}}`$ (11)
$`\stackrel{(\beta =\lambda )}{=}`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{(4\pi )^{D/2}}}{\displaystyle \frac{y^{\mu _1\mathrm{}\mu _n}}{y^{2(\alpha 1)}}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\mathrm{\Gamma }(\lambda )}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{(\alpha 1)(n+\lambda )}}`$
$`{\displaystyle Dx\frac{x^{\mu _1\mathrm{}\mu _n}}{x^{2\alpha }(xy)^{2\beta }}\mathrm{\Theta }(y^2x^2)}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{(4\pi )^{D/2}}}{\displaystyle \frac{y^{\mu _1\mathrm{}\mu _n}}{y^{2(\alpha +\beta \lambda 1)}}}{\displaystyle \underset{m=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{B(m,n|\beta ,\lambda )}{m+n\alpha +\lambda +1}}`$ (12)
$`\stackrel{(\beta =\lambda )}{=}`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{(4\pi )^{D/2}}}{\displaystyle \frac{y^{\mu _1\mathrm{}\mu _n}}{y^{2(\alpha 1)}}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\mathrm{\Gamma }(\lambda )}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{(n+\lambda +1\alpha )(n+\lambda )}}`$
where

$$B(m,n|\beta ,\lambda )=\frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }(m+\beta +n)}{m!\mathrm{\Gamma }(m+n+1+\lambda )\mathrm{\Gamma }(\beta )}\frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }(m+\beta \lambda )}{\mathrm{\Gamma }(\beta \lambda )}$$

The sum of above diagrams does not contain $`\mathrm{\Theta }`$-terms and should reproduce Eq.(9). To compare the r.h.s. of Eqs.(11,12) and the r.h.s. of Eq.(9) we use the transformation of $`{}_{3}{}^{}F_{2}^{}`$-hypergeometric function with unit argument $`{}_{3}{}^{}F_{2}^{}(a,b,c;e,b+1;1)`$ (see ):

$`{\displaystyle \underset{k=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }(k+a)\mathrm{\Gamma }(k+c)}{k!\mathrm{\Gamma }(k+f)}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{k+b}}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }(a)\mathrm{\Gamma }(1a)\mathrm{\Gamma }(b)\mathrm{\Gamma }(cb)}{\mathrm{\Gamma }(fb)\mathrm{\Gamma }(1+ba)}}`$ (13)
$``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }(1a)\mathrm{\Gamma }(a)}{\mathrm{\Gamma }(fc)\mathrm{\Gamma }(1+cf)}}{\displaystyle \underset{k=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }(k+cf+1)\mathrm{\Gamma }(k+c)}{k!\mathrm{\Gamma }(k+1+ca)}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{k+cb}}`$
This is the case (when $`k=m,b=\alpha +\beta \lambda 1,c=n+\beta `$) to compare Eq.(9) and the sum of Eqs.(11,12).

Analogously to Eqs.(11) and (12) we have more complicate cases:

$`{\displaystyle }Dx{\displaystyle \frac{x^{\mu _1\mathrm{}\mu _n}}{x^{2\alpha }(xy)^{2\beta }}}\mathrm{\Theta }(x^2z^2)={\displaystyle \frac{1}{(4\pi )^{D/2}}}y^{\mu _1\mathrm{}\mu _n}[{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Theta }(y^2z^2)}{y^{2(\alpha +\beta \lambda 1)}}}A^{n,0}(\alpha ,\beta )`$
$`+{\displaystyle \underset{m=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{B(m,n|\beta ,\lambda )}{z^{2(\alpha +\beta \lambda 1)}}}(\left({\displaystyle \frac{y^2}{z^2}}\right)^m{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Theta }(z^2y^2)}{m+\alpha +\beta \lambda 1}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{z^2}{y^2}}\right)^{m+\beta +n}{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Theta }(y^2z^2)}{m\alpha +n+1+\lambda }})]`$
$`\stackrel{(\beta =\lambda )}{=}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{(4\pi )^{D/2}}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\mathrm{\Gamma }(\lambda )}}y^{\mu _1\mathrm{}\mu _n}[{\displaystyle \frac{1}{y^{2(\alpha 1)}}}{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Theta }(y^2z^2)}{(\alpha 1)(n+\lambda +1\alpha )}}`$
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{z^{2(\alpha 1)}}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{n+\lambda }}({\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Theta }(z^2y^2)}{\alpha 1}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{z^2}{y^2}}\right)^{n+\lambda }{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Theta }(y^2z^2)}{n+1+\lambda \alpha }})]`$ (14)
$`{\displaystyle }Dx{\displaystyle \frac{x^{\mu _1\mathrm{}\mu _n}}{x^{2\alpha }(xy)^{2\beta }}}\mathrm{\Theta }(z^2y^2)={\displaystyle \frac{1}{(4\pi )^{D/2}}}y^{\mu _1\mathrm{}\mu _n}[{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Theta }(z^2y^2)}{y^{2(\alpha +\beta \lambda 1)}}}A^{n,0}(\alpha ,\beta )`$
$`{\displaystyle \underset{m=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{B(m,n|\beta ,\lambda )}{z^{2(\alpha +\beta \lambda 1)}}}(\left({\displaystyle \frac{y^2}{z^2}}\right)^m{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Theta }(z^2y^2)}{m+\alpha +\beta \lambda 1}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{z^2}{y^2}}\right)^{m+\beta +n}{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Theta }(y^2z^2)}{m\alpha +n+1+\lambda }})]`$
$`\stackrel{(\beta =\lambda )}{=}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{(4\pi )^{D/2}}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\mathrm{\Gamma }(\lambda )}}y^{\mu _1\mathrm{}\mu _n}[{\displaystyle \frac{1}{y^{2(\alpha 1)}}}{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Theta }(z^2y^2)}{(\alpha 1)(n+\lambda +1\alpha )}}`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{z^{2(\alpha 1)}}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{n+\lambda }}({\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Theta }(z^2y^2)}{\alpha 1}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{z^2}{y^2}}\right)^{n+\lambda }{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Theta }(y^2z^2)}{n+1+\lambda \alpha }})]`$ (15)
One can easily see that the sum of the above diagrams lead to results identical to (9).

## 2 Calculation of complicated FD

The aim of this section is to demonstrate the result of  for a class of master two-loop diagrams containing the vertex with two propagators having index 1 or $`\lambda `$.

Consider the following general diagram

$$\frac{DxDy}{y^{2\alpha }(zy)^{2t}(zx)^{2\beta }x^{2\gamma }(xy)^{2s}}J(\alpha ,t,\beta ,\gamma ,s)$$

and restrict ourselves to the FD $`A(\alpha ,\beta ,\gamma )=J(\alpha ,\lambda ,\beta ,\gamma ,\lambda )`$, which is the one of FD of interest for us here. It is easily shown (see ) that ($`\sigma =3+\lambda (\alpha +\beta +\gamma )`$)

$`C_f[A(\alpha ,\beta ,\gamma )]=C_f[A(\alpha ,\sigma ,\gamma )]=C_f[J(\gamma ,\lambda ,\lambda ,\sigma ,\alpha )]=C_f[J(\sigma ,\gamma ,\lambda ,\lambda ,\beta )],`$ (16)
Doing Fourier transformation of both: the diagram $`A(\alpha ,\beta ,\gamma )`$ and its solution in the form $`C_f[A(\alpha ,\beta ,\gamma )](z^2)^{\stackrel{~}{\sigma }}`$, where hereafter $`\stackrel{~}{t}=\lambda +1t,t=\{\alpha ,\beta ,\gamma ,\sigma ,\mathrm{}\}`$, and considering the new diagram as one in the momentum $`x`$-space we obtain the relation

$`C_f[A(\alpha ,\beta ,\gamma )]`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{a_0^2(\lambda )a_0(\alpha )a_0(\beta )a_0(\gamma )}{a_0(\delta )}}C_f[J(\stackrel{~}{\alpha },1,\stackrel{~}{\beta },\stackrel{~}{\gamma },1)]`$ (17)
$`=`$ $`a_0^2(\lambda )a_0(\alpha )a_0(\beta )a_0(\gamma )a_0(\sigma )C_f[J(\stackrel{~}{\beta },1,\stackrel{~}{\alpha },\stackrel{~}{\gamma },1)]`$
between the diagram, which contains the vertex with two propagators having the index $`\lambda `$, and the similar diagram containing the vertex with two propagators having the index 1.

Repeating the manipulations of e would(see ) we can obtain the following relations:

$`C_f[J(\stackrel{~}{\beta },1,\stackrel{~}{\alpha },\stackrel{~}{\gamma },1)]=C_f[J(\stackrel{~}{\beta },1,\stackrel{~}{\sigma },\stackrel{~}{\gamma },1)]=C_f[J(1,1,\stackrel{~}{\gamma },\stackrel{~}{\sigma },\stackrel{~}{\alpha })]=C_f[J(\stackrel{~}{\sigma },1,1,\stackrel{~}{\gamma },\stackrel{~}{\beta })]`$ (18)
Thus, we have obtained the relations between all diagrams from the class introduced in the beginning of this section. Hence, it is necessary to find the solution for one of them. We prefer to analyze the diagram $`A(\alpha ,\beta ,\gamma )`$, that is the content of the next subsection.

1. We calculate the diagram $`A(\alpha ,\beta ,\gamma )`$ by the following way333The symbol $`\stackrel{(n)}{=}`$ marks the fact that the equation $`(n)`$ is used on this step.:

$`A(\alpha ,\beta ,\gamma )\stackrel{(\text{10})}{=}{\displaystyle \underset{n=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{2^n\mathrm{\Gamma }(n+\lambda )}{n!\mathrm{\Gamma }(\lambda )}}{\displaystyle DxDy\frac{z^{\mu _1\mathrm{}\mu _n}}{x^{2\gamma }(zx)^{2\beta }}\frac{y^{\mu _1\mathrm{}\mu _n}}{y^{2\alpha }(xy)^{2\lambda }}\left[\frac{\mathrm{\Theta }(z^2y^2)}{z^{2(n+\lambda )}}+\frac{\mathrm{\Theta }(y^2z^2)}{y^{2(n+\lambda )}}\right]}`$
$`\stackrel{(\text{14},\text{15})}{=}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{(4\pi )^{D/2}}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\mathrm{\Gamma }(\lambda )}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\alpha 1}}{\displaystyle \underset{n=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{2^n\mathrm{\Gamma }(n+\lambda )}{n!\mathrm{\Gamma }(\lambda )}}{\displaystyle }Dx{\displaystyle \frac{z^{\mu _1\mathrm{}\mu _n}x^{\mu _1\mathrm{}\mu _n}}{x^{2\gamma }(zx)^{2\beta }}}[{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\lambda +n+1\alpha }}`$ (19)
$`\times ({\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Theta }(z^2x^2)}{z^{2(n+\lambda )}x^{2(\alpha 1)}}}+{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Theta }(x^2z^2)}{x^{2(n+\lambda )}z^{2(\alpha 1)}}}){\displaystyle \frac{1}{\lambda +n+\alpha 1}}({\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Theta }(z^2x^2)}{z^{2(n+\lambda +\alpha 1)}}}+{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Theta }(x^2z^2)}{x^{2(n+\lambda +\alpha 1)}}})]`$
After some algebra we have got (see ) the result in the form:

$$C_f[A(\alpha ,\beta ,\gamma )]=\frac{1}{(4\pi )^D}\frac{1}{\mathrm{\Gamma }(\lambda )}\frac{1}{\alpha 1}\left[\overline{I}\stackrel{~}{I}\right],$$

where 444We would like to note that the coefficients in Eqs.(20) and (2) are similar to ones (see ) appeared in calculations of FD with massive propagators having the mass $`m`$. The representation of the results for these diagrams in the form $`\phi _n(z^2/m^2)^n`$ ($`\phi _n`$ are the coefficients, which are similar to ones in Eqs.(20) and (2)) is very convenient to obtain the results for more complicated FD by integration in respect of $`m`$ (see -) of results less complicated FD.

$`\overline{I}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{n=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }(n+2\lambda )}{n!\mathrm{\Gamma }(2\lambda )}}[{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\lambda +n+1\alpha }}(A^{n,0}(\alpha 1+\gamma ,\beta )+A^{n,0}(n+\lambda +\gamma ,\beta ))`$ (20)
$``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\lambda +n+\alpha 1}}(A^{n,0}(\gamma ,\beta )+A^{n,0}(n+\alpha +\lambda +\gamma 1,\beta ))]`$
$`\stackrel{~}{I}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }(1\beta )\mathrm{\Gamma }(\lambda +1\alpha )\mathrm{\Gamma }(\lambda 1+\alpha )\mathrm{\Gamma }(1\beta +\lambda )\mathrm{\Gamma }(1\gamma )\mathrm{\Gamma }(\alpha +\beta +\gamma \lambda 2)}{\mathrm{\Gamma }(2\lambda )\mathrm{\Gamma }(2+\lambda \alpha \beta )\mathrm{\Gamma }(\alpha +\gamma 1)\mathrm{\Gamma }(2+\lambda \gamma \beta )\mathrm{\Gamma }(\alpha +\beta \lambda 1)}}`$
$``$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{n=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }(n+2\lambda )}{n!\mathrm{\Gamma }(2\lambda )}}{\displaystyle \frac{(1)^n\mathrm{\Gamma }(1\beta )}{\mathrm{\Gamma }(\beta \lambda )}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\lambda +n+\alpha 1}}`$
$`\times `$ $`\left[{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }(\alpha +\beta +\gamma \lambda 2)\mathrm{\Gamma }(2\alpha \gamma )}{\mathrm{\Gamma }(3\alpha \beta \gamma n)\mathrm{\Gamma }(\alpha +\gamma +\lambda 1+n)}}+{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }(1\gamma )\mathrm{\Gamma }(\beta +\gamma \lambda 1)}{\mathrm{\Gamma }(\gamma \lambda n)\mathrm{\Gamma }(2+2\lambda \beta \gamma +n)}}\right]`$
Thus, a quite simple solution for $`A(\alpha ,\beta ,\gamma )`$ is obtained555 Before our studies, the possibility to represent $`C_f[A(\alpha ,\beta ,\gamma )]`$ as a combination of $`{}_{3}{}^{}F_{2}^{}`$-hypergeometric functions with unit argument, has been observed in .. In next section we will consider the important special case of these results.

2. As a simple but important example to apply these results we consider the diagram $`J(1,1,1,1,\alpha )`$. It arises in the framework of a number of calculations (see ). Its coefficient function $`I(\alpha )C_f[J(1,1,1,1,\alpha )]`$ can be found (see ) as follows

$`I(\alpha )={\displaystyle \frac{a_0^4(1)a_0(\alpha )}{a_0(\alpha +22\lambda )}}C_f[J(\lambda ,\lambda ,\lambda ,\lambda ,\stackrel{~}{\alpha })]\text{ and }C_f[J(\lambda ,\lambda ,\lambda ,\lambda ,\stackrel{~}{\alpha })]=C_f[A(\stackrel{~}{\alpha },3\lambda \stackrel{~}{\alpha },\lambda )]`$
From Eqs. (20) and (2) we obtain

$`I(\alpha )={\displaystyle \frac{2}{(4\pi )^D}}{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }^2(\lambda )\mathrm{\Gamma }(\lambda \alpha )\mathrm{\Gamma }(\alpha +12\lambda )}{\mathrm{\Gamma }(2\lambda )\mathrm{\Gamma }(3\lambda \alpha 1)}}`$ (22)
$`\times [{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }^2(1/2)\mathrm{\Gamma }(3\lambda \alpha 1)\mathrm{\Gamma }(2\lambda \alpha )\mathrm{\Gamma }(\alpha +12\lambda )}{\mathrm{\Gamma }(\lambda )\mathrm{\Gamma }(2\lambda +1/2\alpha )\mathrm{\Gamma }(1/22\lambda +\alpha )}}+{\displaystyle \underset{n=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }(n+2\lambda )}{\mathrm{\Gamma }(n+\alpha +1)}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{n+1\lambda +\alpha }}]`$
Note that in  Kazakov has got another result for $`I(\alpha )`$:

$`I(\alpha )={\displaystyle \frac{2}{(4\pi )^D}}{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }^2(\lambda )\mathrm{\Gamma }(1\lambda )\mathrm{\Gamma }(\lambda \alpha )\mathrm{\Gamma }(\alpha +12\lambda )}{\mathrm{\Gamma }(2\lambda )\mathrm{\Gamma }(\alpha )\mathrm{\Gamma }(3\lambda \alpha 1)}}`$ (23)
$`\times [{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }(\lambda )\mathrm{\Gamma }(2\lambda )\mathrm{\Gamma }(\alpha )\mathrm{\Gamma }(3\lambda \alpha 1)}{\mathrm{\Gamma }(2\lambda 1)\mathrm{\Gamma }(32\lambda )}}{\displaystyle \underset{n=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}()^n{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }(n+2\lambda )}{\mathrm{\Gamma }(n+2\lambda )}}({\displaystyle \frac{1}{n+1\lambda +\alpha }}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{n+2\lambda \alpha }})]`$
From Eqs. (22) and (23) we obtain the transformation rule for $`{}_{3}{}^{}F_{2}^{}`$-hypergeometric function with argument $`1`$:

$`{}_{3}{}^{}F_{2}^{}(2a,b,1;b+1,2a;1)=b{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }(2a)\mathrm{\Gamma }(b+a1)\mathrm{\Gamma }(ba)\mathrm{\Gamma }(1+ab)}{\mathrm{\Gamma }(2a)\mathrm{\Gamma }(1+b2a)}}`$
$``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1a}{b+a1}}{}_{3}{}^{}F_{2}^{}(2a,b,1;b+1,b+a;1){\displaystyle \frac{b}{1+ab}}{}_{3}{}^{}F_{2}^{}(2a,1+ab,1;2+ab,2a;1),`$
where $`a=\lambda `$ and $`b=1\lambda +\alpha `$ are used.

Equation (2) has been explicitly checked at $`a=1`$ and $`b=2a`$ (i.e. $`\lambda =1`$ and $`\alpha =1`$), where the $`{}_{3}{}^{}F_{2}^{}`$-hypergeometric functions may be calculated exactly. It is very difficult to prove Eq.(2) at arbitrary $`a`$ and $`b`$ values: the general proof seems to be non-trivial. Note that it is different from the equations of  and may be considered as a new transformation rule.

## 3 Applications

The above results have been used for evaluation of very complicated FD which contribute mostly in calculations based on various type of $`1/N`$ expansions:

* In the calculation (in ) of the next-to-leading (NLO) corrections to the value of dynamical mass generation (see ) in the framework of three-dimensional Quantum Electrodynamics.
* In the evaluation (in ) of the correct value of of the leading order contribution to the $`\beta `$-function of the $`\theta `$-term in Chern-Simons theory. The $`\beta `$-function is zero in the framework of usual perturbation theory but it takes nonzero values in $`1/N`$ expansion (see ).
* In the evaluation (in ) of NLO corrections to the value of gluon Regge trajectory (see discussions in  and references therein).
* In the calculation (in ) of the next-to-leading corrections to the BFKL intercept of spin-dependent part of high-energy asymptotics of hadron-hadron cross-sections.
* In the calculation (in ) of the next-to-leading corrections to the BFKL equation at arbitrary conformal spin.
* In the evaluation (in ) of the most complicated parts of $`\mathrm{O}(1/N^3)`$ contributions to critical exponents of $`\varphi ^4`$-theory, for any spacetime dimensionality $`D`$.

We consider here only basic steps of the last analysis . Since the pioneering work of the St Petersburg group , exploiting conformal invariance  of critical phenomena, it was known that the $`\mathrm{O}(1/N^3)`$ terms in the large-$`N`$ critical exponents of the non-linear $`\sigma `$-model, or equivalently $`\varphi ^4`$-theory, in any number $`D`$ of spacetime dimensions, derives its maximal complexity from a single Feynman integral $`I(\lambda )`$ (see ):

$$I(\lambda )=\frac{\mathrm{d}}{\mathrm{d}\mathrm{\Delta }}\mathrm{ln}\mathrm{\Pi }(\lambda ,\mathrm{\Delta })|_{\mathrm{\Delta }=0},$$
(25)
where

$$\mathrm{\Pi }(\lambda ,\mathrm{\Delta })=\frac{x^{2(\lambda +\mathrm{\Delta })}}{\pi ^D}\frac{\mathrm{d}^Dy\mathrm{d}^Dz}{y^2z^2(xy)^{2\lambda }(xz)^{2\lambda }(yz)^{2(\lambda +\mathrm{\Delta })}}$$
(26)
is a two-loop two-point integral, with three dressed propagators, made dimensionless by the appropriate power of $`x^2`$.

The result, obtained by GP technique, is

$$I(\lambda )=\mathrm{\Psi }(1)\mathrm{\Psi }(1\lambda )+\frac{\mathrm{\Phi }(\lambda )\frac{1}{3}\mathrm{\Psi }^{\prime \prime }(\lambda )\frac{7}{24}\mathrm{\Psi }^{\prime \prime }(1)}{\mathrm{\Psi }^{}(1)\mathrm{\Psi }^{}(\lambda )},$$
(27)
where $`\mathrm{\Psi }(x)=\mathrm{\Gamma }^{}(x)/\mathrm{\Gamma }(x)`$ and

$$\mathrm{\Phi }(\lambda )=4_0^1𝑑x\frac{x^{2\lambda 1}}{1x^2}\left\{\mathrm{Li}_2(x)\mathrm{Li}_2(1)\right\}(\mathrm{Li}_2(x)=\underset{n>0}{}x^n/n^2),$$
(28)
In  the integral $`I(\lambda )`$ has been expanded near $`D=2`$ and $`D=3`$, respectively, (i.e. for $`D=22\epsilon `$ and $`D=32\epsilon `$) up to $`\epsilon ^8`$ in the form of alternative and non-alternative double Euler sums .

Acknowledgments. Author would like to express his sincerely thanks to the Organizing Committees of the Research Workshop “Calculations for modern and future Colliders” and the XVth International Workshop “High Energy Physics and Quantum Field Theory” and especially to E.E. Boss, V.A. Ilyin, D.I. Kazakov and D.V. Shirkov for the kind invitation, the financial support at such remarkable Conferences, and for fruitful discussions. Author was supported in part by Alexander von Humboldt fellowship.