format: text

text:
# Polarization-dependent discharge in fibers of semiconducting ladder-type polymer

## Abstract

We report results on polarization-dependent photoinduced discharge in oriented fibers and films of ladder-type, electron-transporting polymer poly (benzimidazobenzophenanthroline), BBL. The photocarrier generation efficiency ($`\varphi `$) in the fiber which is indicated by the rate of discharge, is found to be distinctly higher for light polarized parallel to the fiber axis (P) as compared to the radially perpendicular direction (P). Similar results, with $`\varphi `$ anisotropy $``$ 10 are obtained for oriented films. These observations are different from previously obtained results on polyparaphenylenevinylene (PPV). The results are compared with the polarization-dependent steady- state photoconductivity measurements. We interpret these results on the basis of molecular and macroscopic features of the material.

The phenomenon of photoconductivity in conjugated polymer based devices has been extensively studied in recent years . Many models have been developed to explain the various processes involved in charge generation and transport. An interesting aspect, which has not yet been clearly understood, and which is rarely observed is the polarization-dependent anisotropy of photocurrent (Iph). Difficulties are encountered both in the measurement and in the interpretation of the polarization dependence of Iph. This is primarily due to the fact that the photocurrent is a bulk process with the total efficiency governed by the free carrier generation and the subsequent transport of the charge carriers. The latter processes involved in Iph are independent of polarization of the incident light. However, intrinsic optical properties are highly anisotropic due to the asymmetric nature of the polymer structure. Absorption experiments are widely used to characterize optical dichroism in thin polymer films. The macroscopic fluorescence tensor is determined by the single molecule fluorescence tensor and the orientational transformation matrix that relates the molecular and macroscopic axes. Their elements are linked with orientational order parameters characterizing the orientational distribution function . Hence, polarized fluorescence spectroscopy and of lately, polarized electroluminescence, EL has been extensively used to study orientational characteristics of anisotropic samples such as liquid crystalline materials and stretched polymers . The observation of a polarization-dependent bulk feature thus requires samples with high degree of orientation along with reduced disorder, since disorder drastically affects the optical and electrical properties, which can lead to ambiguous interpretation.

There have been conflicting reports on photoconductivity (PC) measurements on stretched PPV derivative films which have indicated both absence of any polarization-dependent features and in certain instances a substantial presence of polarization dependence . The presence of the Iph anisotropy as observed by the transient sub-nanosecond PC measurements, with higher Iph and longer lifetime for carriers generated by P, were interpreted on the basis of interchain photoexcitation processes . The interchain processes involve electrons and holes generated on separate chains, which have a lower probability of recombination than that of intrachain photoexcitation processes. On the other hand, the absence of Iph anisotropy, especially the fast component has been explained on the basis of generation of hot carriers with a high kinetic energy which is weakly dependent on the lattice temperature and chain structure which includes anisotropy in transfer integrals, chain ends and chemical defects .

We address this problem using a modified xerographic technique on the ladder type polymer BBL. The conjugated ladder polymer BBL, with its extensive pi-electron delocalization has drawn much attention due to its remarkable electronic and opto-electronic properties. The polymer possesses excellent mechanical and thermal properties, which can be processed to have high degree of orientation . The fiber formation property representing aligned polymer chains is another interesting feature in this system.

The xerographic technique has evolved as an accurate method of determining the photogeneration efficiency of photoreceptors . The surface potential discharge represented by the photo induced discharge curve (PIDC), is a direct measure of the photogenerated charge carriers . The photo induced discharge characteristics can be further separated into emission -limited and space-charge-limited cases. The absorbed photons create electron-hole pairs, which drift away from the photogeneration region, thus reducing the electric field. The rate of change of electric field is given by dE/dt = e$`\eta `$AI0/$`ϵ_s`$ where I0 is the flux, A is the absorption, and $`\eta `$ is the supply efficiency indicating the number of carriers in the photoabsorption region injected into the bulk, which in emission limited case equals the quantum efficiency for conversion of photon to free carriers. A distinct advantage of this method compared to electrode contact based Iph measurements is the absence of photoinjection and interfacial effects which can mask out subtle intrinsic features . The present method employed is capable of probing the photogenerated charge carriers at length scales equivalent to migration distances of $``$ 100 $`\AA `$. In our knowledge this technique has not been used with polarized light to study the efficiencies of charge generation in oriented polymer systems.

The oriented film and fiber ($``$ 10 $`\mu `$m in diameter) of BBL were used for the present studies and were prepared by a spinning process . In the Xerographic experiment, the surface of the fiber was charged by corona and the surface potential decay with time was measured by a probe which was capacitively coupled to the back plate, the voltage being measured by a Keithley Inc. electrometer having an input resistance of 1014 $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$. The surface voltage was sampled at a rate of 50 ms. A linear polarizer was placed in conjunction with an unpolarized red LED source to obtain the desired polarization. The incident photon energy of 1.84 eV is close to the bandedge for BBL ( 1.67 ev). The intensity was independent of the polarization axis and was $``$ 1012 photons/cm2s. The light was incident normal to the plane of the fiber with the polarization direction in the plane of the fiber either parallel or perpendicular to the fiber axis. Argon atmosphere was maintained during the discharging process to avoid moisture induced effects on the surface. The results obtained were corrected for the dark decay and anisotropy in reflection for the different angles of polarization. The minor correction factor due to the small difference in the reflectance of the samples for different polarization, was taken into account using the procedure adopted by Ref. 5. The polarization dependant PL was carried out at 80 K by placing a linear polarizer in between the sample and the xenon source with a peak wavelength of 532 nm for excitation. The steady-state Iph was measured in the planar - surface geometry with an inter electrode spacing of 100 $`\mu `$m using standard lock-in techniques . It is to be noted that in case of the Iph (coplanar measurements) the external applied field was in the direction of the fiber axis and the polarization axis chosen was either parallel or perpendicular to this bias field.

SEM observations of the polymer fiber reveal aligned fibrillar bundled structures as shown in Fig. 1 with the fibril diameter $``$ 100 nm. These fibers show features in X-ray measurements indicating that polymer chains are aligned along the fibril axis, and correlates the macroscopic and microscopic anisotropy in this system.

It is found that the negative charge acceptance (surface charge density) on BBL films / fibers is much higher than positive charge acceptance. It is also observed that the derivative of initial decay of PIDC is higher ($``$ 3 times) when the surface was charged negative indicating electrons as the predominant charge carriers in BBL . This procedure was also applied for MEHPPV films where the derivative of initial decay of PIDC was higher when the surface was charged positive indicating hole transport, which is well established in MEHPPV. Photo-induced surface potential decay measurements on unoriented cast films of BBL is shown in Fig. 2a. The PIDC was found to be independent of the excitation polarization direction. The PIDC for the fiber with polarization of the excitation light P and P is shown in Fig. 3. It can be seen from the figure that the derivative of PIDC is almost twice higher for P than for P. Similar results were obtained for the oriented film as shown in Fig. 2b. The photoinduced discharge rate was measured as a function of the angle of the polarization axis and is depicted in Fig. 3.(inset). The angular response can be represented by a periodic function $``$ F$`\mathrm{cos}^2x`$ \+ A, where F is a slowly varying function of x, as shown in Fig. 3(inset).

Conventional contact based steady-state Iph of the oriented film in the planar configuration did not vary considerably between P and P modes. This was in contrast to the xerographic measurements and the non-dependence of Iph on polarization was present over a large range of voltage bias, 0 V - 200 V. The present results of (I$`{}_{ph}{}^{}`$ $`>`$ I$`{}_{ph}{}^{}`$) from PIDC measurements are quite different from anisotropy reports using sub-nanosecond transient photoconductivity measurements of oriented MEHPPV and polyacetylene films,  where higher Iph and longer lifetime are observed for carriers generated by light polarized perpendicular to the orientation axis. An implicit assumption here was that Iph was intrinsic in nature, and free carrier generation was due to direct field induced dissociation of the bound interchain polaron pair and was inferred as a measure of the interchain to intrachain processes. .

In the present case of BBL both intrinsic and extrinsic processes exists by which initial intrachain processes such as dissociation of intrachain excitons result with electrons and holes which are spatially separated (across the chain). The following features of BBL polymer are considered to interpret the PIDC anisotropy results : (i) The alignment of the chains along the fibril axis can result in large absorption anisotropy(absorptionintrachain/absorptioninterchain). This feature arises from the transition dipole moment vector largely along the chain axis as indicated by semi-empirical calculations on this system.(ii) BBL is a hetero-aromatic ladder type polymer where the initial electron-hole recombination can be effectively reduced due to the network of multiple conjugation paths. This argument is consistent with the low intrachain radiative recombination yield obtained in BBL resulting in a practically nonexistent EL and a low PL efficiency. The low PL yield, which is largely a measure of the intrachain e-h recombination, when examined carefully with polarized light excitation, shows a higher yield for P compared to P direction. The intrachain electron-hole pair can then dissociate in presence of electric field due to combination of factors which includes thermally accessible defect-mediated processes and interchain coupling mechanisms, which finally leads to sizable Iph efficiency as observed in this polymer .

The results of the angular dependence of the discharge rate in Fig. 3 (inset) can then be explained on the basis of the above two factors. However, an exact quantitative estimate of the PIDC anisotropy result is difficult due to following reasons: (i) The SEM image in Fig. 1 reveals structures which are not aligned along the fiber axis. At a molecular level, the off-axis dipole moment can also result in intra-chain processes for P, thereby reducing the anisotropy magnitude. (ii) The recombination processes are expected to be different for carriers generated by P and P.

The absence of any appreciable polarization effect in the steady-state Iph measurements in coplanar geometry with a sizable presence in the xerographic measurements emphasizes the more local nature of probing of the later technique. The sizable density of electronic defects in the system leading to trap limiting processes prevails over the photo-induced charge carrier generating rates and can mask out the polarization-dependent initial charge generating features. An analysis of the defect dominated kinetics and polarization-dependent transient studies can resolve this apparent contradiction of the steady-state Iph results with the xerographic measurements. The effects of macroscopic factors on the dc conductivity ($`\sigma `$dc) is sizable due to the barriers involved in the electronic transport between the fibrils and the inhomogeneous extrinsic impurity distribution which are more obvious from anisotropy of nearly four orders as observed in $`\sigma `$dc measurements . Hence, the microscopic orientation observed in the fibers consisting of nearly-aligned polymer chains along with the PDIC results is a measure of the local anisotropy, distinguishing it from the larger length scale processes.

In summary, a distinct anisotropy in the PDIC was observed as a function of polarization. The measurements confirm the existence of polarization induced effects even when it is not observable in conventional contact based photoconductivity experiments. The results of these measurements obtained are strikingly different to earlier results on PPV based polymers in the following aspects: (I) The negative charges /electron transport in BBL compared to the hole based transport in PPV systems. (II) P yields more efficient discharge rates compared to P, and can be attributed to the absorption anisotropy, which can prevail in this system accompanied by other intrachain delocalizing processes of the e-h pair.

K.S.N thanks R.J. Spry, Polymer branch, AFRL for providing the polymer fibers and Department of Science and Technology (Indo-Israel project) for partial funding.


text:
# References

The problem of the gross properties of hadron interactions in the high energy limit has been a central problem of particle and nuclear physics for over fifty years. Remarkable progress in recent years has resulted from the observation that the gluon density of the small $`x`$ part of the hadron wavefunction, the relevant piece for high energies, grows rapidly as $`x`$ decreases . When the gluon density increases, important non-linear phenomena are expected, which should eventually lead to saturation , that is, to a limitation of the maximum gluon phase-space density. At saturation, this density is expected to be of order $`1/\alpha _s`$ , since interactions among the gluons will cutoff further growth once the interaction energy is comparable to the kinetic energy. For such a large density, perturbation theory breaks down even if the coupling constant is small, because of strong non-linear effects.

On dimensional grounds, the square of the typical momentum scale associated with saturation is expected to be of the order of the density of gluons per unit area . If this saturation momentum $`Q_s`$ is large enough ($`Q_s\mathrm{\Lambda }_{QCD}`$), then the saturation regime is characterized by weak coupling $`\alpha _s(Q_s^2)1`$ and large occupation numbers $`1/\alpha _s`$ which, by the correspondence principle, is a classical regime. This motivated McLerran and Venugopalan to describe the gluon component of the hadronic wavefunction at small $`x`$ as a stochastic classical Yang-Mills field , subsequently interpreted as a “Color Glass Condensate” (CGC) . This has the advantage that the non-linear physics at saturation can be studied in the simpler setting of a classical field theory, via a combination of analytic  and numerical methods .

In the McLerran-Venugopalan (MV) model, all the dynamical information about the “fast” partons (i.e., the partons with longitudinal momenta $`p^+`$ larger then the scale $`\mathrm{\Lambda }^+=xP^+`$ of interest555Throughout, we consider the hadron in its infinite momentum frame, and use light-cone vector notations, $`v^\mu =(v^+,v^{},𝐯_{})`$, with $`v^+(1/\sqrt{2})(v^0+v^3)`$, $`v^{}(1/\sqrt{2})(v^0v^3)`$, and $`𝐯_{}(v^1,v^2)`$. The hadron four-momentum reads $`P^\mu =(P^+,0,𝐎_{})`$, with $`P^+\mathrm{}`$, while soft gluons have $`k^+=xP^+`$, with $`x1`$.) is encoded in a probability distribution for the classical color field describing the “soft” gluons (i.e., the gluons with momenta $`k^+<\mathrm{\Lambda }^+`$). In principle, this probability distribution can be computed in perturbation theory, by integrating out the fast quantum modes in layers of $`p^+`$, to leading order in $`\alpha _s\mathrm{ln}(1/x)`$, but to all orders in the strong classical background field . This results in a functional renormalization group equation (RGE) which describes the evolution of the probability density with the separation scale $`\mathrm{\Lambda }^+`$. The formal structure of this equation has been first presented in Refs. , and further discussed in Refs. , but previous attempts  to compute the coefficients in this equation have suffered from technical complications and, moreover, appear to be inconsistent  with the results obtained from perturbative QCD .

In a parallel development due to Balitsky  and Kovchegov , the evolution of Wilson line operators has been studied within the operator product expansion and the dipole model of Mueller . This has led to a set of coupled evolution equations for the expectation values of these operators , which decouple only in the large $`N`$ limit  with $`N`$ the number of colors. (See also Refs.  for some recent attempts towards solving these equations.) In a recent paper , Weigert has shown that Balitsky’s equations can be summarized as a functional evolution equation for the generating functional of the Wilson line operators. As we shall show in this paper, this is precisely the equation which governs the evolution of the probability distribution for the CGC.

Specifically, our main purpose in this Letter is to present explicit expressions for the coefficients in the RGE describing the quantum evolution of the CGC . The details of our calculation, which relies heavily on the formalism developed in Ref. , will be presented somewhere else .

We start by briefly reviewing the MV model and its quantum evolution (see  for a recent comprehensive discussion). In the infinite-momentum frame, and to the order of interest, the fast ($`p^+>\mathrm{\Lambda }^+`$) partons can be replaced by a classical color source, with color charge density $`\rho ^a(x)`$, moving along the light-cone ($`z=t`$ or $`x^{}=0`$) in the positive $`x^+`$ direction. Via the Yang-Mills equations:

$`(D_\nu F^{\nu \mu })_a(x)=\delta ^{\mu +}\rho _a(x),`$ (1)
this source determines the classical color field $`A_a^\mu `$ which describes the soft ($`k^+<\mathrm{\Lambda }^+`$) gluons. In the saturation regime, the source and the fields are strong, $`A^i\rho 1/g`$, and the classical problem is fully non-linear.

The structure of $`\rho ^a(x)`$ is largerly determined by kinematics: Since generated by shorth-wavelength modes, with momenta $`p^+>\mathrm{\Lambda }^+`$, $`\rho `$ is localized near $`x^{}=0`$, within a distance $`\mathrm{\Delta }x^{}<1/\mathrm{\Lambda }^+`$; it is static (i.e., independent of the LC time $`x^+`$) since the soft gluons have a comparatively short lifetime $`\mathrm{\Delta }x^+1/k^{}k^+x`$, during which the dynamics of the “fast” partons can be ignored; it is a random quantity, since this is the instantaneous color charge of the fast partons “seen” by the shortlived soft gluons at some arbitrary time. The spatial correlators of the classical source $`\rho _a(\stackrel{}{x})`$ (with $`\stackrel{}{x}(x^{},𝐱_{})`$) are inherited from the (generally time-dependent) quantum correlations of the fast gluons, via the renormalization group equation to be presented below. They are encoded into a weight function for $`\rho _a(\stackrel{}{x})`$, denoted as $`W_\mathrm{\Lambda }[\rho ]`$, which is assumed to be gauge-invariant, and which depends upon the separation scale $`\mathrm{\Lambda }^+`$ (see below).

Physical quantities like the gluon distribution function are most directly related to correlations functions of the transverse fields $`A^i`$ in the light-cone (LC) gauge $`A_a^+=0`$. In the MV model, the correlations functions at the scale $`\mathrm{\Lambda }^+`$ are obtained as:

$`A_a^i(x^+,\stackrel{}{x})A_b^j(x^+,\stackrel{}{y})\mathrm{}_\mathrm{\Lambda }={\displaystyle 𝒟\rho W_\mathrm{\Lambda }[\rho ]𝒜_a^i(\stackrel{}{x})𝒜_b^j(\stackrel{}{y})\mathrm{}},`$ (2)
where $`𝒜_a^i𝒜_a^i[\rho ]`$ is the solution to eq. (1) in the LC gauge, and is implicitely given by the following equations (the other components of the solution vanish: $`𝒜^+=𝒜^{}=0`$):

$`𝒜^i(\stackrel{}{x})`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{i}{g}}U(\stackrel{}{x})^iU^{}(\stackrel{}{x}),`$
$`U^{}(x^{},x_{})`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{P}\mathrm{exp}\left\{ig{\displaystyle _{\mathrm{}}^x^{}}𝑑z^{}\alpha ^a(z^{},x_{})T^a\right\},`$
$`_{}^2\alpha (\stackrel{}{x})`$ $`=`$ $`U^{}(\stackrel{}{x})\rho (\stackrel{}{x})U(\stackrel{}{x})\stackrel{~}{\rho }(\stackrel{}{x}).`$ (3)
There are a few important remarks about this classical field:
a) The equations (1)–(2) above are those for a glass (here, a color glass): There is a source, and the source is averaged over. This is entirely analogous to what is done for spin glasses when one averages over background magnetic fields .
b) The solution $`𝒜^i(x)`$ is a two-dimensional pure-gauge (in the sense that $`^{ij}=0`$), but not also a four-dimensional pure-gauge, since the associated electric field $`^{+i}=^+𝒜^i`$ is non-vanishing. In fact, $`𝒜^i(x)`$ is the gauge transform with gauge function $`U(\stackrel{}{x})`$ of the solution $`\stackrel{~}{𝒜}^\mu `$ in the covariant gauge $`^\mu \stackrel{~}{A}_\mu =0`$ (COV-gauge), which reads simply $`\stackrel{~}{𝒜}^\mu =\delta ^{\mu +}\alpha `$ with $`\alpha (\stackrel{}{x})`$ satisfying:

$`_{}^2\alpha (\stackrel{}{x})=\stackrel{~}{\rho }(\stackrel{}{x}),`$ (4)
where $`\stackrel{~}{\rho }(\stackrel{}{x})`$ is the color source in the COV-gauge.
c) Eq. (S0.Ex1) expresses the LC-gauge solution $`𝒜^i`$ as an explicit functional of the COV-gauge source $`\stackrel{~}{\rho }`$: $`𝒜_a^i𝒜_a^i[\stackrel{~}{\rho }]`$. On the other hand, its dependence upon the LC-gauge source $`\rho `$ is not known explicitly. This, together with the gauge-invariance of the weight function $`W_\mathrm{\Lambda }[\rho ]`$, suggests that it is more convenient to perform the functional averaging in eq. (2) by integrating over $`\stackrel{~}{\rho }`$ (rather than $`\rho `$).
d) In writing eq. (S0.Ex1), we have chosen “retarded” boundary conditions in $`x^{}`$ : $`𝒜^i(\stackrel{~}{x})0`$ for $`x^{}\mathrm{}`$.
e) We shall see later that the source $`\stackrel{~}{\rho }`$ (and therefore also the “Coulomb” field $`\alpha `$) has support at $`0<x^{}<1/\mathrm{\Lambda }^+`$. Thus, when probed by fields with a poor longitudinal resolution (i.e., which carry momenta $`k^+\mathrm{\Lambda }^+`$), the configuration (S0.Ex1) appears effectively as a $`\theta `$-function in $`x^{}`$ :

$`𝒜^i(x^{},x_{})\theta (x^{}){\displaystyle \frac{i}{g}}V(^iV^{})\theta (x^{})𝒜_{\mathrm{}}^i(x_{}),`$ (5)
with $`𝒜_{\mathrm{}}^i(x_{})`$ the asymptotic field, and

$`V^{}(x_{})\mathrm{P}\mathrm{exp}\left\{ig{\displaystyle _{\mathrm{}}^{\mathrm{}}}𝑑x^{}\alpha (x^{},x_{})\right\},`$ (6)
where the integral over $`x^{}`$ runs effectively up to $`x_{max}^{}1/\mathrm{\Lambda }^+`$ (since $`\alpha `$ vanishes for larger values of $`x^{}`$). On the same resolution scale, the electric field appears as a $`\delta `$–function:

$`^{+i}(\stackrel{}{x})^+𝒜^i\delta (x^{})𝒜_{\mathrm{}}^i(x_{}).`$ (7)
In the original MV model, eqs. (1)–(2) are simply postulated, and the weight function $`W_\mathrm{\Lambda }[\rho ]`$ is not computed from first principles. Indeed, the physical origin of the large gluon densities, namely the quantum evolution towards small $`x`$, is absent from the model. But in Refs. , one has shown that the MV model is indeed consistent with the quantum evolution, which entails a renormalization group equation (RGE) for the running of $`W_\mathrm{\Lambda }[\rho ]`$ with $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$. This is the same quantum evolution which in the weak field regime leads to the BFKL equation. But for small enough $`x`$, when one is close to saturation, this evolution takes place in the strong background field $`𝒜^i`$ generated at the previous steps. When $`𝒜^i1/g`$, the mean field effects are non-perturbative, and must be included exactly.

To describe the quantum evolution, consider a sequence of two classical effective theories (“Theory I” and “Theory II”) valid at the scales $`\mathrm{\Lambda }^+`$ and $`b\mathrm{\Lambda }^+`$, respectively, with $`b<1`$ and such as $`\alpha _s\mathrm{ln}(1/b)<1`$. To the order of interest, the gluon correlations at the lower scale $`b\mathrm{\Lambda }^+`$ can be computed in two ways: As classical correlations within Theory II (which is valid at this scale), or by allowing for quantum fluctuations in Theory I and integrating out the “semi-fast” quantum gluons with longitudinal momenta in the strip

$`b\mathrm{\Lambda }^+<|p^+|<\mathrm{\Lambda }^+,`$ (8)
to leading order in $`\alpha _s\mathrm{ln}(1/b)`$, but to all orders in the background fields and sources. (See Refs.  for the quantum generalization of the MV model.) The difference $`\mathrm{\Delta }WW_{b\mathrm{\Lambda }}W_\mathrm{\Lambda }`$, and therefore the evolution equation for $`W_\mathrm{\Lambda }`$, can be then obtained by matching these two calculations . The explicit matching performed in Ref.  shows that it is indeed possible to absorb the effects of the semi-fast gluons on the soft correlation functions into a renormalization of the weight function for the effective theory. This is in agreement with the original conjecture in Refs. , and justifies the use of the McLerran-Venugopalan model as an effective theory at small $`x`$.

The RGE is most naturally written in the LC-gauge, where the quantum effective theory is defined. It reads666We use $`\tau `$ to denote the rapidity variable, $`\tau =\mathrm{ln}(1/x)`$, rather than the more common notation $`y`$ to avoid confusion with the space-time coordinate $`y`$. Also, we use compact notations, where repeated color indices (coordinate variables) are understood to be summed (integrated) over. (with $`\tau \mathrm{ln}(P^+/\mathrm{\Lambda }^+)`$ and $`d\tau \mathrm{ln}(1/b)`$)  :

$`{\displaystyle \frac{W_\tau [\rho ]}{\tau }}=\alpha _s\left\{{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}{\displaystyle \frac{\delta ^2}{\delta \rho _\tau ^a(x_{})\delta \rho _\tau ^b(y_{})}}[W_\tau \chi _{xy}^{ab}]{\displaystyle \frac{\delta }{\delta \rho _\tau ^a(x_{})}}[W_\tau \sigma _x^a]\right\}`$ (9)
with the coefficients $`\sigma _x^a\sigma _a(x_{})`$ and $`\chi _{xy}^{ab}\chi _{ab}(x_{},y_{})`$ related to the 1-point and 2-point functions of the color charge $`\delta \rho _a(x)`$ of the semi-fast gluons via the following relations:

$`\alpha _s\mathrm{ln}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{b}}\sigma _a(x_{})`$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle 𝑑x^{}\delta \rho _a(x)},`$
$`\alpha _s\mathrm{ln}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{b}}\chi _{ab}(x_{},y_{})`$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle 𝑑x^{}𝑑y^{}\delta \rho _a(x^+,\stackrel{}{x})\delta \rho _b(x^+,\stackrel{}{y})},`$ (10)
where the brackets denote the average over quantum fluctuations in the background of the tree-level color fields $`𝒜^i`$.

Note that $`\sigma `$ and $`\chi `$ are two-dimensional densities in the transverse plane; the longitudinal structure of the relevant charge correlators has been integrated over. This is consistent with our picture of the quantum evolution where the semi-fast gluons are unable to discriminate (because of their low $`p^+`$ momenta) the longitudinal structure of the source. For this picture to be validated, however, one still has to check that $`\sigma `$ and $`\chi `$ are not sensitive to the internal structure of the source (see below).

There is nevertheless a trace of this longitudinal structure in eq. (9): the functional derivatives there are to be taken with respect to the color source $`\rho _\tau ^a(x_{})\rho ^a(x^{}=1/\mathrm{\Lambda }^+,x_{})`$ in the highest bin of rapidity $`(\tau ,\tau +d\tau )`$, that is, at $`x^{}`$ in the range $`(1/\mathrm{\Lambda }^+,1/b\mathrm{\Lambda }^+)`$. This is so since, as we shall shortly discover, the quantum corrections have support in that range. This longitudinal structure is important to make the functional derivatives in eq. (9) well defined  (see also eq. (35) below).

Eq. (9) is a functional Fokker-Planck equation describing diffusion in the functional space spanned by $`\rho `$ with “drift velocity” $`\alpha _s\sigma `$ and “diffusion constant” $`\alpha _s\chi `$. Since $`\sigma `$ and $`\chi `$ are generally non-linear functionals of $`\rho `$ (see below), eq. (9) is equivalent with an infinite set of coupled evolution equations for the correlators of $`\rho `$. For these equations to be useful, the functionals $`\sigma [\rho ]`$ and $`\chi [\rho ]`$ have to be known explicitly. To this aim, it is more convenient to use the COV-gauge source $`\stackrel{~}{\rho }`$ (rather than the LC-gauge source $`\rho `$) as the independent variable. Indeed, $`\sigma `$ and $`\chi `$ depend upon the color source via the classical field $`𝒜^i`$ which is known explicitly only in terms of $`\stackrel{~}{\rho }`$ (cf. eq. (S0.Ex1)).

As explained in Ref. , when going from the LC-gauge to the COV-gauge, the induced color charge $`\sigma `$ acquires a new contribution, in addition to the color rotation with matrix $`U^{}`$. This is so because the transformation between the two gauges depends upon the charge content in the problem: this was $`\rho `$ at the initial scale $`\mathrm{\Lambda }^+`$, thus giving a gauge transformation $`U^{}[\rho ]`$, but it becomes $`\rho +\delta \rho `$, with fluctuating $`\delta \rho `$, at the new scale $`b\mathrm{\Lambda }^+`$, thus inducing a fluctuating component in the corresponding gauge function $`U^{}[\rho +\delta \rho ]`$. After averaging out the quantum fluctuations, one is left with a RGE for $`W_\tau [\stackrel{~}{\rho }]`$ which is formally similar to eq. (9), but with $`\rho \stackrel{~}{\rho }`$, $`\chi \stackrel{~}{\chi }`$, and $`\sigma \stackrel{~}{\sigma }`$, where:

$`\stackrel{~}{\chi }_{ab}(x_{},y_{})`$ $``$ $`V_{ac}^{}(x_{})\chi _{cd}(x_{},y_{})V_{db}(y_{}),\stackrel{~}{\sigma }_a(x_{})V_{ab}^{}(x_{})\sigma _b(x_{})\delta \sigma _a(x_{}),`$
$`\delta \sigma _a(x_{})`$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{g}{2}}f^{abc}{\displaystyle d^2y_{}\stackrel{~}{\chi }_{cb}(x_{},y_{})y_{}|\frac{1}{_{}^2}|x_{}}.`$ (11)
The correction $`\delta \sigma `$, to be referred to as the “classical polarization”, is the result of the quantum evolution of the gauge transformation to the COV-gauge.

It is our purpose in this Letter to present explicit expressions for the quantities $`\stackrel{~}{\chi }`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{\sigma }`$ as functionals of $`\stackrel{~}{\rho }`$, and thus completely specify the RGE for $`W_\tau [\stackrel{~}{\rho }]`$. The Feynman rules for the calculation of these quantities have been already presented in Refs. . They involve the propagator

$`iG_{ab}^{\mu \nu }(x,y)[𝒜]`$ $``$ $`\mathrm{T}a_a^\mu (x)a_b^\nu (y)`$ (12)
of the semi-fast gluons $`a^\mu `$ in the presence of the background fields $`𝒜^i`$ and in the LC-gauge $`a^+=0`$ (where the quantum theory is a priori formulated ). In Ref. , this propagator has been constructed to all orders in the background field, by exploiting the special geometry of the latter (see also Refs. ). One of the subtle points in this construction has been the choice of a gauge condition (i.e., of an $`iϵ`$ prescription for the pole in $`1/p^+`$ in the gluon propagator) to fix the residual gauge freedom in the LC-gauge. This is important since the general results for $`\chi `$ and $`\sigma `$ turn out to be dependent upon this prescription777The discrepancy between our results below and those reported in Refs.  may be attributed to using different gauge-fixing prescriptions..

For consistency with the retarded boundary conditions imposed on the classical solution (S0.Ex1) and with the assumed longitudinal structure of the original color source (which, we recall, has support at positive $`x^{}`$ only, with $`0<x^{}<1/\mathrm{\Lambda }^+`$), we shall integrate out the quantum fluctuations by using a retarded $`iϵ`$ prescription in the LC-gauge propagator (see Ref.  for details). We have verified that the same results for $`\chi `$ and $`\sigma `$ would be eventually obtained also by using an advanced prescription . On the other hand, we have not been able to give a sense to calculations with principal value or Leibbrandt-Mandelstam prescriptions.

Consider the induced source $`\sigma `$ first. Up to some tadpoles (i.e., contributions proportional to $`d^2p_{}/p_{}^2`$) which cancel anyway in the final result, this is obtained from

$`\delta \rho _a(x)=gf^{abc}(^+a_b^i(x))a_c^i(x)=g\mathrm{Tr}\left(T^a_x^+G^{ii}(x,y)\right)|_{x=y}\mathrm{Tr}(T^a\delta \rho (x)),`$ (13)
where the equal-time limit of the time-ordered propagator (12) is taken as $`y^+=x^++ϵ`$ . Eq. (13) can be evaluated as follows (more details will be given in Ref. ): The relevant component of the propagator $`G^{ii}(x,y)`$ (the only one to give a non-vanishing contribution to $`\delta \rho `$) can be read off eq. (6.35) of Ref. , which gives (omitting tadpoles once again):

$`\delta \rho (x)=igx|𝒟^i{\displaystyle \frac{1}{i^+}}\stackrel{´}{G}^{++}𝒟^i|x,`$ (14)
where $`𝒟^i^iig𝒜_a^iT^a`$ and $`𝒟^j=^j+ig𝒜^j`$ with the derivative $`^j`$ acting on the function on its left. In eq. (14), $`\stackrel{´}{G}^{++}(x,y)`$ is a component of the background-field propagator in the temporal gauge $`\stackrel{´}{a}^{}=0`$, which enters at intermediate steps in the construction of the propagator in the LC-gauge . It is given by eqs. (6.22) and (6.13) of Ref.  as:

$`\stackrel{´}{G}^{++}(\stackrel{}{x},\stackrel{}{y};p^{})`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{2i}{p^{}}}{\displaystyle d^3\stackrel{}{z}_x^iG_0(\stackrel{}{x}\stackrel{}{z},p^{})\delta (z^{})_y^iG_0(\stackrel{}{z}\stackrel{}{y},p^{})}`$ (15)
$`\times \left\{\theta (x^{})\theta (y^{})V(x_{})V^{}(z_{})\theta (x^{})\theta (y^{})V(z_{})V^{}(y_{})\right\},`$
where $`G_0(p)=1/(2p^+p^{}p_{}^2+iϵ)`$. Eq. (15) has been written in the $`p^{}`$–representation, which is convenient given the homogeneity of the problem in time (recall that the background fields and sources are independent of $`x^+`$; cf. eq. (S0.Ex1)). For the same reason, it is preferable to impose the strip restriction (8) on $`p^{}`$ rather than on $`p^+`$  :

$`\mathrm{\Lambda }^{}<|p^{}|<\mathrm{\Lambda }^{}/b,`$ (16)
where $`\mathrm{\Lambda }^{}Q_{}^2/2\mathrm{\Lambda }^+`$ and $`Q_{}`$ is some generic transverse momentum888As explained in , the two restrictions (8) and (16) are equivalent to leading logarithmic accuracy since the relevant quantum contributions involve nearly on-shell quanta, with $`2p^+p^{}p_{}^2`$..

The expression in eq. (15) has an intuitive interpretation  : The particle (a “semi-fast” gluon) is moving from $`y`$ to $`x`$ in the presence of the singular electric field (7) located at $`z^{}=0`$. In eq. (15), the end points $`y^{}`$ to $`x^{}`$ lie on opposite sides with respect to the plane $`z^{}=0`$, which corresponds to trajectories crossing the potential999There are, of course, also “non-crossing” trajectories where $`x^{}`$ and $`y^{}`$ are of the same sign . These have not been included in eq. (15) since they do not contribute to the induced source (14).. Consider $`x^{}>0`$ and $`y^{}<0`$ for definitness. On the first part of the trajectory, from $`y^{}`$ to $`z^{}=0`$, the field $`𝒜^i`$ vanishes (cf. eq. (5)) and the particle moves freely. At $`z^{}=0`$, the gluon scatters off the electric field (7) with a scattering amplitude $`V^{}(z_{})`$. Finally, from $`z^{}=0`$ until $`x^{}`$ the color of the gluon is simply rotated, with color matrix $`V(x_{})`$, by the “pure gauge” background field $`𝒜^i`$.

After inserting eq. (15) in eq. (14) and performing simple manipulations, one obtains:

$`\delta \rho (x)`$ $`=`$ $`g𝒟_x^i{\displaystyle _{strip}}{\displaystyle \frac{dp^{}}{2\pi }}{\displaystyle \frac{2}{p^{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{dp^+}{2\pi }\frac{dk^+}{2\pi }\frac{e^{i(p^+k^+)x^{}}}{p^++iϵ}𝑑\mathrm{\Gamma }_{}(p_{}k_{})G_0(p)G_0(k)}`$ (17)
$`\left\{\theta (p^{})V(x_{})V^{}(z_{})\theta (p^{})V(z_{})V^{}(y_{})\right\}𝒟_y^i|_{y=x},`$
where it is understood that $`k^{}=p^{}`$ (with $`p^{}`$ restricted to the strip (16)), and we have used the following shorthand notation for the transverse phase-space integrals:

$`{\displaystyle 𝑑\mathrm{\Gamma }_{}}{\displaystyle d^2z_{}\frac{d^2p_{}}{(2\pi )^2}\frac{d^2k_{}}{(2\pi )^2}\mathrm{e}^{ip_{}(x_{}z_{})}\mathrm{e}^{ik_{}(z_{}y_{})}}.`$ (18)
Note the $`+iϵ`$ prescription for the “axial” pole at $`p^+=0`$ : this is the retarded gauge-fixing prescription alluded to before. By using this prescription, together with the Feynman prescriptions in the propagators $`G_0(p)`$ and $`G_0(k)`$, the integrals over $`p^+`$ and $`k^+`$ can be easily performed via contour technics. This generates $`\theta `$-functions of $`\pm x^{}`$ and $`\pm p^{}`$ which, together with the $`\theta `$-functions already present in eq. (17), have the effect to single out contributions proportional to $`\theta (x^{})\theta (p^{})`$.

The final result of this straightforward calculation reads:

$`\delta \rho _a(x)=g\theta (x^{}){\displaystyle \frac{e^{ib\mathrm{\Lambda }^+x^{}}e^{i\mathrm{\Lambda }^+x^{}}}{\pi x^{}}}𝒟_x^i{\displaystyle 𝑑\mathrm{\Gamma }_{}\frac{p_{}k_{}}{p_{}^2k_{}^2}k^i\mathrm{Tr}\left(T^aV_zV_y^{}\right)}|_{y_{}=x_{}},`$ (19)
where the $`x^{}`$–dependent “form factor” has been generated by integrating over $`p^{}`$ within the strip (16) (with $`k_{}^2/2\mathrm{\Lambda }^{}\mathrm{\Lambda }^+`$ to the accuracy of interest) :

$`{\displaystyle _{strip}}{\displaystyle \frac{dp^{}}{2\pi }}{\displaystyle \frac{\theta (p^{})}{2(p^{})^2}}e^{i\frac{k_{}^2}{2p^{}}x^{}}={\displaystyle \frac{1}{k_{}^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{e^{ib\mathrm{\Lambda }^+x^{}}e^{i\mathrm{\Lambda }^+x^{}}}{2\pi ix^{}}}.`$ (20)
Remarkably, eq. (19) shows that $`\delta \rho `$ has support only at positive, and relatively large, $`x^{}`$, with (typically) $`1/\mathrm{\Lambda }^+<x^{}<1/b\mathrm{\Lambda }^+`$. That is, the induced source is located on top on the tree-level source $`\rho `$ (with support at $`x^{}<1/\mathrm{\Lambda }^+`$). By induction, we conclude that the classical source has support only at $`x^{}0`$. When the quantum fluctuations are integrated out in layers of $`p^+`$, the source receives new contributions in layers of $`x^{}`$, with essentially no overlap between successive layers. This specific longitudinal picture is intimately related to our use of the retarded prescription in the LC-gauge propagator. With an advanced prescription, one would rather obtain a source with support at negative $`x^{}`$. Still, the integrated (or two-dimensional) charge density $`\sigma (x_{})`$ comes up the same with both prescriptions , and reads (cf. eq. (S0.Ex3))

$`\alpha _s\mathrm{ln}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{b}}\sigma ^a(x_{})={\displaystyle \frac{g}{\pi }}\mathrm{ln}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{b}}𝒟_x^i{\displaystyle 𝑑\mathrm{\Gamma }_{}\frac{p_{}k_{}}{p_{}^2k_{}^2}k^i\mathrm{Tr}\left(T^aV_zV_y^{}\right)}|_{y_{}=x_{}},`$ (21)
where the covariant derivative involves the asymptotic field: $`𝒟_x^i=_x^ii𝒜_{\mathrm{}}^i(x_{})`$. Note that the logarithmic enhancement has been generated only after integration over $`x^{}`$. For what follows, it is useful to have the expression of $`\sigma `$ rotated to the covariant gauge:

$`gV_{ab}^{}(x_{})\sigma ^b(x_{})=\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}4}_x^i{\displaystyle 𝑑\mathrm{\Gamma }_{}\frac{p_{}k_{}}{p_{}^2k_{}^2}k^i\mathrm{Tr}\left(T^aV_x^{}V_z\right)}.`$ (22)
In the weak field limit $`g\alpha 1`$, the r.h.s. of this equation scales like $`g\rho `$, as it can be easily verified by expanding the Wilson lines; thus $`\sigma =𝒪(\rho )`$. In fact, in this limit, $`\sigma =𝒦_{virt}\rho `$, with $`𝒦_{virt}`$ the virtual BFKL kernel . In the saturation regime, $`g\alpha 1`$, and all the non-linear effects displayed by the above equation are equally important.

Consider $`\chi `$ now. A typical contribution to the charge-charge correlator reads

$`\delta \rho _a(x)\delta \rho _b(y)=\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}4}ig^2_{ac}^{+i}(\stackrel{}{x})G_{cd}^{ij}(x,y)_{db}^{+j}(\stackrel{}{y}),`$ (23)
where it is understood that $`y^+=x^++ϵ`$. The calculation of this and the remaining contributions is similar to that of $`\sigma `$ outlined above, and eventually gives the following result (in matrix notations) :

$`\delta \rho _x\delta \rho _y`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{g^2}{\pi }}\mathrm{ln}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{b}}\{_x^{+i}x_{}|\delta ^{ij}{\displaystyle \frac{^i^j}{_{}^2}}|y_{}_y^{+j}`$
$`+(\rho +2^{+i}(𝒟^i{\displaystyle \frac{^i}{2}}))_xx_{}|{\displaystyle \frac{1}{_{}^2}}|y_{}(\rho +2(𝒟^j{\displaystyle \frac{^j}{2}})^{+j})_y\}.`$
In this equation, both $`\rho `$ and $`^{+i}`$ are localized at $`x^{}<1/\mathrm{\Lambda }^+`$. Thus, unlike the induced charge (19), the charge-charge correlator appears to be localized near the LC (in both $`x^{}`$ and $`y^{}`$), and thus sensitive to the internal structure of the source. If this was also true for $`\chi `$, it would spoil the separation of scales assumed by the effective theory, and thus the validity of the latter. Fortunately, however, this is not the case: Like the electric field $`^{+i}=^+𝒜^i`$, all the other functions carrying the $`x^{}`$ and $`y^{}`$ dependences in eq. (S0.Ex7) are total derivatives with respect to $`x^{}`$ or $`y^{}`$. Thus, $`\chi `$ — which is obtained from eq. (S0.Ex7) by integrating over $`x^{}`$ and $`y^{}`$, cf. eq. (S0.Ex3) — is sensitive only to the asymptotic fields.

Specifically, by using the equations of motion (1), the following identity can be verified (for an arbitrary function $`\mathrm{\Phi }(x_{})`$) :

$`(\rho +2^{+i}𝒟^i)_x\mathrm{\Phi }(x_{})=i^+𝒟_x^2\mathrm{\Phi }(x_{}),`$ (25)
which allows us to cast $`\chi `$ in the following form:

$`\chi _{ab}(x_{},y_{})=\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}4}\left\{𝒜_x^i\delta _{}^{ij}(x_{}y_{})𝒜_y^j+\left(𝒟^i𝒜^i\right)_xx_{}|{\displaystyle \frac{1}{_{}^2}}|y_{}\left(𝒜^j𝒟^j\right)_y\right\}_{ab},`$ (26)
where all the fields are asymptotic fields, e.g., $`𝒜_x^i𝒜_{\mathrm{}}^i(x_{})`$ and $`𝒟^i=^iig𝒜_{\mathrm{}}^i`$. For weak fields, $`𝒜^i^i\alpha `$, and $`\chi \rho 𝒦_{real}\rho `$, with $`𝒦_{real}`$ the real BFKL kernel . After rotation to the COV-gauge (cf. eq. (S0.Ex4)), eq. (26) yields:

$`\stackrel{~}{\chi }_{ab}(x_{},y_{})={\displaystyle \frac{4}{g^2}}\left\{^iV_x^{}\delta _{}^{ij}(x_{}y_{})^jV_y+_x^i\left(\left(^iV^{}\right)_xx_{}|{\displaystyle \frac{1}{_{}^2}}|y_{}\left(^jV\right)_y\right)_y^j\right\}_{ab},`$ (27)
where the derivatives not included in the brackets act on all the functions on their right (or left).

Once $`\stackrel{~}{\chi }`$ is known, we are in a position to compute also the classical polarization $`\delta \sigma `$ in eq. (S0.Ex4). One thus obtains (up to a tadpole which would anyway cancel against the tadpole ignored when writing eq. (22)) :

$`g\delta \sigma _a(x_{})=2i_x^i{\displaystyle 𝑑\mathrm{\Gamma }_{}\frac{p_{}k_{}}{p_{}^2k_{}^2}_x^i\mathrm{Tr}\left(T^aV_x^{}V_z\right)}.`$ (28)
Unlike $`\sigma `$ in eq. (22), $`\delta \sigma `$ has no contribution linear in $`\rho `$, so it does not contribute at the BFKL level. This is as it should, since the BFKL equation is already obtained by combining the weak field limits of the previous results for $`\sigma `$ and $`\chi `$ . On the other hand, $`\delta \sigma `$ is as important as $`\sigma `$ in the non-linear regime where $`g\alpha 1`$. By combining eqs. (22) and (28), we finally arrive at the following expression for $`\stackrel{~}{\sigma }`$, which is the quantity which enters the RGE for $`W_\tau [\stackrel{~}{\rho }]`$ (cf. eq. (S0.Ex4)) :

$`g\stackrel{~}{\sigma }_a(x_{})=_{}^2\left\{2i{\displaystyle 𝑑\mathrm{\Gamma }_{}\frac{p_{}k_{}}{p_{}^2k_{}^2}\mathrm{Tr}\left(T^aV_x^{}V_z\right)}\right\}g_{}^2\nu _a(x_{}).`$ (29)
Up to a normalization factor, the quantity $`\nu _a(x_{})`$ introduced above is the induced color field in the COV-gauge, that is, the modification in the original field $`\alpha `$ induced by the quantum corrections. It can be verified that $`\nu `$, and therefore $`\stackrel{~}{\sigma }`$, are free of tadpoles: the tadpoles hidden in $`\sigma `$, eq. (22), and $`\delta \sigma `$, eq. (28), have cancelled in their sum.

At this stage, the RGE for $`W_\tau [\stackrel{~}{\rho }]`$ is fully specified. It has the formal structure shown in eq. (9), but with $`\rho \stackrel{~}{\rho }`$, $`\chi \stackrel{~}{\chi }`$, and $`\sigma \stackrel{~}{\sigma }`$, and $`\stackrel{~}{\chi }`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{\sigma }`$ given by eqs. (27) and (29). But the peculiar structure of the “virtual” correction in eq. (29) suggests that the RGE may acquire an even simpler form by using the COV-gauge field $`\alpha `$ rather than the COV-gauge source $`\stackrel{~}{\rho }`$ as the functional variable of $`W_\tau `$. By using (cf. eq. (4))

$`{\displaystyle \frac{\delta }{\delta \stackrel{~}{\rho }_\tau ^a(x_{})}}={\displaystyle d^2z_{}x_{}|\frac{1}{_{}^2}|z_{}\frac{\delta }{\delta \alpha _\tau ^a(z_{})}},`$ (30)
where $`\alpha _\tau ^a(x_{})\alpha ^a(x^{}=1/\mathrm{\Lambda }^+,x_{})`$ is the color field in the highest bin of rapidity (where the quantum corrections are located), one can transform the RGE for $`W_\tau [\stackrel{~}{\rho }]`$ into the following RGE for $`W_\tau [\alpha ]`$ :

$`{\displaystyle \frac{W_\tau [\alpha ]}{\tau }}=\alpha _s\left\{{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}{\displaystyle \frac{\delta ^2}{\delta \alpha _\tau ^a(x_{})\delta \alpha _\tau ^b(y_{})}}[W_\tau \eta _{xy}^{ab}]{\displaystyle \frac{\delta }{\delta \alpha _\tau ^a(x_{})}}[W_\tau \nu _x^a]\right\},`$ (31)
where

$`g\nu ^a(x_{})`$ $`=`$ $`2i{\displaystyle \frac{d^2z_{}}{(2\pi )^2}\frac{1}{(x_{}z_{})^2}\mathrm{Tr}\left(T^aV_x^{}V_z\right)},`$ (32)
and

$`g^2\eta ^{ab}(x_{},y_{})`$ $``$ $`g^2{\displaystyle d^2z_{}d^2u_{}x_{}|\frac{1}{_{}^2}|z_{}\stackrel{~}{\chi }^{ab}(z_{},u_{})u_{}|\frac{1}{_{}^2}|y_{}}`$ (33)
$`=`$ $`4{\displaystyle \frac{d^2z_{}}{(2\pi )^2}\frac{(x^iz^i)(y^iz^i)}{(x_{}z_{})^2(y_{}z_{})^2}\left\{1+V_x^{}V_yV_x^{}V_zV_z^{}V_y\right\}^{ab}}.`$
The kernels in the equations above have been written in coordinate space by using

$`{\displaystyle \frac{d^2p_{}}{(2\pi )^2}\frac{d^2k_{}}{(2\pi )^2}\frac{p_{}k_{}}{p_{}^2k_{}^2}\mathrm{e}^{ip_{}(x_{}z_{})}\mathrm{e}^{ik_{}(z_{}y_{})}}={\displaystyle \frac{1}{(2\pi )^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{(x^iz^i)(y^iz^i)}{(x_{}z_{})^2(y_{}z_{})^2}}.`$ (34)
The functional derivatives with respect to $`\alpha _\tau `$ in eq. (31) are understood as variations in the color field at $`x^{}1/\mathrm{\Lambda }^+`$, which is the end point of the Wilson lines $`V^{}`$ and $`V`$ (cf. the remark after eq. (6)). Thus, the derivatives of the latter read simply:

$`{\displaystyle \frac{\delta V^{}(x_{})}{\delta \alpha _\tau ^a(z_{})}}=igT^aV^{}(x_{})\delta ^{(2)}(x_{}z_{}),{\displaystyle \frac{\delta V(y_{})}{\delta \alpha _\tau ^a(z_{})}}=igV(y_{})T^a\delta ^{(2)}(y_{}z_{}).`$ (35)
Eqs. (31)–(33) represent our main result in this Letter. They govern the flow with $`\tau =\mathrm{ln}(1/x)`$ of the probability density $`W_\tau [\alpha ]`$ for the stochastic color field $`\alpha _\tau (\stackrel{}{x})`$ which describes the CGC in the COV-gauge. Since the r.h.s. of eq. (31) is a total derivative with respect to $`\alpha `$, this flow automatically preserves the correct normalization of the weight function:

$`{\displaystyle 𝒟\alpha W_\tau [\alpha ]}=\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}1}.`$ (36)
The functional RGE equation (31) can be used to derive evolution equations for all the observables which can be related to $`\alpha `$ (like the soft gluon correlation functions (2)). If $`O(\alpha )`$ is any such an operator, then its average over $`\alpha `$, defined as in eq. (2) but with $`\rho `$ replaced by $`\alpha `$, obeys the following equation

$`{\displaystyle \frac{}{\tau }}O(\alpha )_\tau =\alpha _s{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\eta _{xy}^{ab}{\displaystyle \frac{\delta ^2O}{\delta \alpha _\tau ^a(x_{})\delta \alpha _\tau ^b(y_{})}}+\nu _x^a{\displaystyle \frac{\delta O}{\delta \alpha _\tau ^a(x_{})}}_\tau ,`$ (37)
which is obtained by multiplying eq. (31) with $`O(\alpha )`$, integrating over $`\alpha `$, and performing some integrations by parts in the r.h.s.

In particular, by chosing $`O(\alpha )=\mathrm{tr}(V_x^{}V_y)`$ with the Wilson lines $`V_x^{}`$ and $`V_y`$ in the fundamental representation, and by using eqs. (32)–(35) and performing the color algebra, one eventually obtains the following evolution equation (with $`N`$ the number of colors)

$`{\displaystyle \frac{}{\tau }}\mathrm{tr}(V_x^{}V_y)_\tau ={\displaystyle \frac{\alpha _s}{2\pi ^2}}{\displaystyle d^2z\frac{(x_{}y_{})^2}{(x_{}z_{})^2(y_{}z_{})^2}\mathrm{tr}(V_x^{}V_z)\mathrm{tr}(V_z^{}V_y)N\mathrm{tr}(V_x^{}V_y)_\tau },`$ (38)
which coincides with the corresponding equation obtained by Balitsky  within perturbative QCD. In the large $`N`$ limit, the 4-point function in the r.h.s. factorizes:

$`\mathrm{tr}(V_x^{}V_z)\mathrm{tr}(V_z^{}V_y)_\tau \mathrm{tr}(V_x^{}V_z)_\tau \mathrm{tr}(V_z^{}V_y)_\tau (\mathrm{for}N\mathrm{}),`$ (39)
and eq. (38) reduces a closed equation for the quantity $`𝒩(x_{},y_{})\mathrm{tr}(1V_x^{}V_y)_\tau `$ (which represents the forward scattering amplitude of a color dipole off the hadron):

$`{\displaystyle \frac{}{\tau }}𝒩_{xy}={\displaystyle \frac{\alpha _s}{2\pi ^2}}{\displaystyle d^2z\frac{(x_{}y_{})^2}{(x_{}z_{})^2(y_{}z_{})^2}\left\{N\left(𝒩_{xz}+𝒩_{zy}𝒩_{xy}\right)𝒩_{xz}𝒩_{zy}\right\}}.`$ (40)
This coincides with the evolution equation obtained by Kovchegov  within the framework of Mueller’s dipole model .

We now return to more formal properties of the RGE (31), and notice the following remarkable relation between the coefficients in this equation:

$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}{\displaystyle d^2y\frac{\delta \eta ^{ab}(x_{},y_{})}{\delta \alpha _\tau ^b(y_{})}}=\nu ^a(x_{}),`$ (41)
which is most probably a consequence of gauge symmetry (as it relies 1-point and 2-point functions). By using this relation, the RGE can be brought into a Hamiltonian form:

$`{\displaystyle \frac{W_\tau [\alpha ]}{\tau }}={\displaystyle \frac{\alpha _s}{2}}{\displaystyle d^2xd^2y\frac{\delta }{\delta \alpha _\tau ^a(x)}\left(\eta _{xy}^{ab}\frac{\delta W_\tau }{\delta \alpha _\tau ^b(y)}\right)}HW_\tau ,`$ (42)
with the following, manifestly positive definite, Hamiltonian

$`H`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{d^2z_{}}{2\pi }J_a^i(z_{})J_a^i(z_{})},`$
$`J_a^i(z_{})`$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{d^2x_{}}{2\pi }\frac{z^ix^i}{(z_{}x_{})^2}(1V_z^{}V_x)_{ab}\frac{i\delta }{\delta \alpha _\tau ^b(x_{})}}.`$ (43)
(Notice that the “current” operator $`J_a^i(z_{})`$ is indeed Hermitian, since the Wilson lines in the adjoint representation are real color matrices: $`V_{ab}^{}=V_{ba}`$.) This same Hamiltonian structure has been recently identified by Weigert  in relation with a generating functional for Balitsky’s evolution equations. Since our effective theory generates Balitsky’s equations indeed, it should not be a surprise that we come across the same Hamiltonian.

Eq. (42) has the structure of a diffusion equation. Since the Hamiltonian is a purely kinetic term, this equation describes a Brownian motion in the functional space of $`\alpha `$. As $`\tau `$ increases, we expect the solution $`W_\tau [\alpha ]`$ to this equation to spread over the whole available phase space, and thus to go asymptotically to zero at any given “point” $`\alpha ^a(x_{})`$ (because of the normalization condition (36)). As a simple analogy, consider the equation describing the one-dimensional diffusion:

$`{\displaystyle \frac{W_\tau (x)}{\tau }}={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\eta {\displaystyle \frac{^2W_\tau (x)}{x^2}}.`$ (44)
The solution to this equation,

$`W_\tau (x)={\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{2\pi \eta \tau }}}\mathrm{e}^{\frac{x^2}{2\eta \tau }},`$ (45)
is normalized to unity at any $`\tau `$ ($`𝑑xW_\tau (x)=1`$), and goes smoothly to zero at any $`x`$ when $`\tau \mathrm{}`$, as it spreads over the whole $`x`$ axis.

In Ref. , Weigert has conjectured that a uniform (i.e, $`\alpha `$-independent) probability distribution $`W_0`$ should be a fixed point of the evolution as $`\tau \mathrm{}`$. His arguments are as follows: first, any constant $`W_0`$ is an eigenfunction of $`H`$ with zero eigenvalue ($`HW_0=0`$); second, since $`H`$ is positive definite, all its other eigenvalues must be positive. From this, he concludes that the constant eigenfunction (the “fundamental state” of $`H`$) will be singled out by the evolution for sufficiently large $`\tau `$. However, we disagree with this interpretation. As mentioned above, a uniform probability density is necessarily trivial, $`W_0=0`$, to cope with the normalization condition. Besides, for the “fundamental state” of $`H`$ to be singled out by the evolution, there must be a gap between this state and the first excited state. But such a gap cannot be expected for a Hamiltonian which is just a kinetic term, like eq. (S0.Ex9). To distinguish between these various asymptotic scenarios and, even more importantly, to find the behaviour of $`W_\tau [\alpha ]`$ at large, but finite $`\tau `$, further studies of eq. (42) are necessary.

To conclude, we have established the equivalence between the non-linear evolution equations derived within perturbative QCD and within the effective theory for the Color Glass Condensate. We have thus resolved a discrepancy between these two approaches previously reported in Refs. . There are several noticeable differences between our calculations and those in Refs.  (chiefly among them, the different gauge-fixing prescriptions), which may explain the different results, but a deep understanding of these differences requires more study. We have found that the evolution of the gluon correlation functions in the non-linear regime at small $`x`$ is governed by a Hamiltonian describing current-current interactions in two spatial dimensions. Given the relative simplicity of this Hamiltonian, we believe that analytic solutions to this equation (at least in particular limits) should be within our reach.

Acknowledgements

The authors gratefully acknowledge conversations with Ian Balitsky, Jean-Paul Blaizot, Elena Ferreiro, Jamal Jalilian-Marian, Al Mueller, Eugene Levin, Yuri Kovchegov, Alex Kovner, Raju Venugopalan, and Heribert Weigert, with special mentions to the latter (H.W.) for having explained to us some subtle points of his recent work.

This manuscript has been authorized under Contract No. DE-AC02-98H10886 with the U. S. Department of Energy.


text:
# On the estimation of galaxy structural parameters: the Sérsic Model

## 1 Introduction

The parametrisation of galaxies is a staple activity of many astronomers. Indeed, it enables one to perform comparative studies and search for correlations which hopefully provide a deeper insight into the formative and evolutionary mechanisms at play in the Universe. Some of the most fundamental quantities pertaining to a galaxy come from the child-like questions: How big is it? How bright is it? One way astronomers answer such apparently simple questions is through fitting model profiles to the radial distribution of a galaxy’s light. For many years the de Vaucouleurs (1948, 1959) $`r^{1/4}`$ law was employed for this task amongst the Elliptical galaxies. However, over the last decade or so, as the quality of the data has improved – largely due to the use of CCDs – this fitting function has been replaced by the generalised $`r^{1/n}`$ profile first proposed by Sérsic (1968), and revitalised by Capaccioli (1987, 1989), Davies et al. (1988) and Caon, Capaccioli & D’Onofrio (1993). In the case of Spiral galaxies, the central bulge is also well modelled with an $`r^{1/n}`$ profile (Andredakis, Peletier & Balcells 1995; Moriondo, Giovanardi & Hunt 1998; Khosroshahi, Wadadekar, & Kembhavi 2000; Graham 2001; Möllenhoff & Heidt 2001) – while an exponential disk model does a remarkably good job at matching the observed disk light distribution.

Although $`r^{1/n}`$ models fit the ‘observed’ light profiles very closely, there remains the question of where the galaxy actually finishes. In practice, the sky-background often limits the extent to which one has measured a galaxy, and the extrapolation, beyond which ever limiting isophote this may be, is somewhat problematic. Application of light profile models to surface brightness profiles implicitly assumes that the galaxy profiles extend to infinity. For a rapidly declining intensity profile this is not such a bad assumption, as the extra galaxy light beyond that actually observed is usually only a small percentage of the total galaxy light. However, in the case of the $`r^{1/4}`$ law, such extrapolation can be substantial. What this means is that the model derived parameters of size (the effective half-light radius $`r_e`$) and brightness (the surface brightness at this radius, $`\mu _e`$, or the mean surface brightness enclosed by this radius, $`<`$$`\mu `$$`>`$e), and total galaxy magnitude, can be significantly different to those obtained in a model-independent fashion using the ‘truncated’ galaxy light profile.

In Section 2, we commence by giving a little support to the $`r^{1/n}`$ models by highlighting an often over-looked fact. The correlation between the shape parameter $`n`$ and galaxy size $`r_e`$, from a given sample of Elliptical galaxies, is definitely not explained by parameter coupling in the fitting process; this trend between galaxy structure and size exists when one uses model-independent values. We show, in Section 3, that the shape parameter $`n`$ is monotonically related with the central galaxy light concentration. Another issue of importance is the bias in the galaxy parameters when one fits an $`r^{1/4}`$ law to a profile which is better described with a light profile having a shape parameter $`n`$ which is different to 4. In Section 4, we explore this mathematically by constructing the equations that govern the ratio of parameters $`r_n/r_4`$ (effective radii from the respective models) and $`I_n(0)/I_4(0)`$ (central intensities) when one forces an $`r^{1/4}`$ model to an $`r^{1/n}`$ profile. We do this by deriving, and solving, the analytical expressions which govern the $`\chi ^2`$ value which one hopes to minimise when fitting a classical de Vaucouleurs model to an intensity profile with shape $`n`$. These ratios are computed here as a function of both $`n`$, and the radial range $`r/r_n`$ to which one fits the $`r^{1/4}`$ model. As a result, we are able to explain why the product $`<`$$`I`$$`>`$$`{}_{e}{}^{\alpha }r_{e}^{}`$, where $`\alpha `$$``$0.7, appears constant, independent of whether or not one fitted an $`r^{1/4}`$ or an $`r^{1/n}`$ model – answering a frequently mentioned question about galaxy structure. In Section 5, we compute numerically the relative change to the galaxy parameters when one truncates the surface brightness profile at differing radii. We summarise our main conclusions in Section 6.

## 2 The $`n`$$`\mathrm{log}r_e`$ relation

This section addresses the question of whether or not parameter coupling in the $`r^{1/n}`$ model can account for, or has resulted in, artificial correlations between the photometric parameters (see for e.g. Kelson et al. 2000). One particular aspect of this potential problem is the correlation found between the Sérsic index $`n`$ and the logarithm of the effective radius $`r_e`$ for Elliptical galaxies (Caon et al. 1993). If this correlation is physical, it means that the light distribution in Elliptical galaxies varies with galaxy size: larger galaxies tend to be more centrally concentrated than smaller galaxies ($`n`$ can be thought of as a central concentration parameter, see Section 3).

It is known that, irrespective of the true galaxy profile shape, in general the effective half-light radius derived from a fitted $`r^{1/n}`$ model will decrease and increase as the value of $`n`$ does. Therefore, it is important to verify if the trend between galaxy size and light profile shape (that is, structure) is physical, or simply an illusion of the model fitting. We shall see shortly that such a relation between structure and size ($`r_e`$) is real (that is, is not dependent on any fitted light profile model), and was in fact already present, although somewhat hidden, in the correlations between the other global structural parameters.

The Sérsic $`r^{1/n}`$ radial intensity profile can be written as:

$$I(r)=I(0)\mathrm{exp}^{b_n(\frac{r}{r_e})^{\frac{1}{n}}},$$
(1)
where $`I(0)`$ is the central intensity, and $`r_e`$ is a scale radius. The quantity $`b_n`$ is a function of the shape parameter $`n`$, and is chosen so that the scale radius encloses half of the total luminosity. A good approximation is $`b_n`$$`=`$$`2n0.324`$ for $`n`$$``$1; however, in this paper we have used the exact value derived from $`\mathrm{\Gamma }(2n)`$$`=`$$`2\gamma (2n,b_n)`$, where $`\mathrm{\Gamma }(a)`$ and $`\gamma (a,x)`$ are the gamma function and the incomplete gamma function (Abramowitz & Stegun 1964).

Without fitting a light profile model, the most commonly measured galaxy parameters are: the total galaxy luminosity $`L_T`$, the effective radius $`r_e`$ (defined as the equivalent radius of the isophote encircling half of the total galaxy flux), and the effective surface brightness $`\mu _e`$. These can be measured from the direct integration of the flux out to some limiting isophote, and, if desired, subsequent extrapolation to infinity by some appropriate technique. These quantities are obtained without any assumption of a model (although some ad hoc hypothesis is often done for the extrapolation to infinity), and can be applied to any galaxy.

Observers have found, what are today, well known correlations between these photometric parameters. Figure 1 shows one example of these correlations – based on the data set of Elliptical galaxies in the Virgo and Fornax Clusters (data from Caon et al. 1990, 1994). The existence of such correlations implies (clearly) two things:
a) the values are restricted to a finite region of the total parameter space, and
b) the parameters are not independent of each other.

Now, for a general photometric model, we can write the total luminosity as:

$$L_T=k_LI_er_e^2,$$
(2)
where $`k_L`$ is a “structural parameter” whose value depends on the form of the galaxy light distribution (Djorgovski, de Carvalho & Han 1988; Graham & Colless 1997). If we assume that the Sérsic model can provide a good description of Elliptical galaxies, we can identify the $`k_L`$ term as

$$k_L=e^{b_n}\frac{2\pi n}{b_n^{\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}2}n}}\mathrm{\Gamma }(2n).$$
(3)
Thus, to every triplet ($`L_T`$, $`I_e`$, $`r_e`$) of global parameters corresponds a unique value of $`k_L`$, and hence $`n`$. If all galaxies followed the $`r^{1/4}`$ law then $`n`$ would equal 4 for every galaxy, and $`k_L`$ would be constant for every galaxy.

In Figure 2, we have plotted the values of $`n`$ and $`\mathrm{log}r_e`$. In the left panel, the value of $`r_e`$ is that obtained from the model-independent analysis, and $`n`$ comes from equation 3. In the right panel, both $`r_e`$ and $`n`$ were obtained from fitting a Sérsic model to the surface brightness data. The agreement is clearly good. What this is telling us is that the structure of the Elliptical galaxies does depend on their size – independent of any fitted photometric model – one could have plotted $`k_L`$ instead of $`n`$.

To re-iterate, independent of any model, the size of an Elliptical galaxy is related to its structure (as given by either the little used/known $`k_L`$ term or the Sérsic shape parameter $`n`$).111This correlation is still clear, albeit with larger scatter, if we plot $`n`$ against the old-fashioned “effective aperture”: the radius of the circle centered on the nucleus within which one-half of the total flux is emitted – as listed in the RC3 catalog. If one chooses to characterise or model these structural shapes with the $`r^{1/n}`$ model, one finds a good agreement between the values obtained in a model-independent way. In other words, the relationship between $`n`$ (or $`k_L`$) and $`\mathrm{log}r_e`$ is not simply due to parameter coupling in the fitting routine. Error coupling between $`n`$ and $`r_e`$ (Graham et al. 1996) can “stretch” the correlation, but can not account for it entirely.222Total magnitudes and effective radii were measured by Caon et al. (1990, 1994) by using the $`r^{1/4}`$ model to extrapolate the growth curve to infinity. This means that $`L_T`$ and $`r_e`$ will be under-estimated for profiles with $`n`$$`>`$4, and over-estimated for those profiles with $`n`$$`<`$4; this will shift the points in the $`\mathrm{log}r_e`$$`n`$ diagram in the direction opposite to the parameter coupling in the Sérsic model.

When a model for the observed surface brightness profile is assumed, only galaxies which are well described by the model should be used to obtain quantitative information. This can limit the number of the galaxies analysed in a sample. So then, why is it necessary, and/or useful, to use a model profile to obtain photometric parameters? We can think of several reasons:

1. Although global, model-independent parameters can be obtained for virtually any galaxy, their physical meaning can be uncertain for the different morphological classes, or rather, ill-defined for multiple component galaxies.
2. A model provides a tool to disentangle different stellar components in galaxies (e.g. Sérsic bulge plus exponential disk).
3. By using simple analytical functions to describe the light distribution, it is possible to analytically obtain the density profile using the Abel integral equation.
4. It allows one to obtain a more reliable description of the over-all structure (value of $`n`$) by restricting the fit to the “good” part of the light profile, excluding, for instance, outer regions which can be affected by low S/N, sky-subtraction errors or distorsions due to tidal disturbances.

## 3 A central concentration parameter, and its relation with $`n`$

Following Doi, Fukugita & Okamura (1993), the ‘concentration’ of a galaxy’s light is defined in Abraham et al. (1994) as

$$C=\frac{_{i,jE(\alpha )}I_{ij}}{_{i,jE(1)}I_{ij}}.$$
(4)
With the radius normalised to 1 at the outer measurable isophote, $`E(\alpha )`$ represents the isophote whose radius is $`\alpha `$ ($`<`$1) times that of the outer radius of the galaxy. $`I_{ij}`$ represents the intensity in the pixel ($`i,j`$).

This definition is clearly ill posed when dealing with a profile model which extends to infinity; $`C`$$`=`$$`L(`$$`<`$$`\alpha r)/L(`$$`<`$$`r)`$$``$1 as $`r`$$``$$`\mathrm{}`$. But even with a profile that is truncated at some radius (and by this we include a radius that may encompasses all of the galaxy light), this definition still poses problems. The outer isophote to which one reliably detects light is a function of exposure time, telescope aperture, sky-brightness, personal signal-to-noise detection requirements, etc. Now while a 30% gain in radius, from a deeper image, may not necessarily change the total luminosity by much, it will change the normalised radius $`\alpha `$ by 30%, which can significantly effect the amount of light enclosed by this inner radius, and hence significantly effect the value of $`C`$.

We therefore propose a definition for the ‘central’ concentration which does not present this problem and can also be used in both a model-dependent and a model-independent way. Let $`C_{r_\mathrm{e}}`$ be the central concentration index, such that

$$C_{r_\mathrm{e}}(\alpha )=\frac{_{i,jE(\alpha r_e)}I_{ij}}{_{i,jE(r_e)}I_{ij}}.$$
(5)
Here, $`E(r_e)`$ means the isophote which encloses half of the total light of the galaxy, and $`E(\alpha r_e)`$ is the isophote at a radius (0$`<`$$`\alpha `$$`<`$1) times $`r_e`$. This definition is still sensitive to the outer-most radius used to compute the total galaxy light, but not as strongly dependent as the definition of $`C`$ given in equation 4. For a Sérsic law,

$$C_{r_\mathrm{e}}(\alpha )=\frac{\gamma (2n,b_n\alpha ^{1/n})}{\gamma (2n,b_n)}.$$
(6)
Figure 3 shows the values of $`C_{r_\mathrm{e}}`$ as a function of the Sérsic index $`n`$, for two different values of $`\alpha `$, namely 0.3 and 0.5. The central concentration index and the index $`n`$ are monotonically related, and $`n`$ is therefore a useful estimator of the central concentration of a galaxy.

## 4 Why $`r_e`$$`<`$$`I`$$`>`$e0.7 is constant – regardless of $`n`$

When fitting a Sérsic model, the effective radius and mean intensity that one derives depends on the value of $`n`$. Different choices of $`n`$ will give different values of $`r_e`$ and $`<`$$`I`$$`>`$e (and, of course, different $`\chi ^2`$ values for the fit); nevertheless, the product $`r_e`$$`<`$$`I`$$`>`$$`{}_{}{}^{\alpha }{}_{e}{}^{}`$ with $`\alpha 0.7`$, is extremely stable333$`<`$$`I`$$`>`$e means the average surface brightness within $`r_e`$. We will use the notation $`r_n`$ and $`<`$$`I`$$`>`$n for these quantities derived from a Sérsic profile with index $`n`$. $`I_n(0)`$ is the central intensity at $`r`$$`=`$0. (Kormendy & Djorgovski 1989; Saglia, Bender, & Dressler 1993; Kelson et al. 2000). As a consequence, because the exponent $`\alpha `$ almost coincides with the exponent on $`<`$$`I`$$`>`$e in the Fundamental Plane scaling law (Djorgovski & Davis 1987; Dressler et al. 1987) relating $`r_e`$ and $`<`$$`I`$$`>`$e with the central velocity dispersion $`\sigma `$, such that $`\sigma ^y`$$``$$`r_e`$$`<`$$`I`$$`>`$$`{}_{}{}^{x}{}_{e}{}^{}`$, the Fundamental Plane is quite independent of whether one adopts a Sérsic or a de Vaucouleurs law (Kelson et al. 2000)444Kelson et al. 2000 varied the radial extent, and hence the data, to which they fitted their models each time they varied $`n`$, making a comparison of their structural parameters somewhat uncertain; the influence of the sky changing with each fitted model.. Here, we show mathematically how the constancy of the above product, for an individual galaxy, is a direct consequence from the form of the Sérsic law.

To do this we construct a profile which is perfectly described by a Sérsic law with index $`n`$, effective radius $`r_n`$ and central intensity $`I_n(0)`$. What happens if we then fit this profile with a de Vaucoleurs law; what values of $`r_4`$ and $`I_4(0)`$ shall we obtain?

Using the $`\chi ^2`$ goodness indicator for the fit, one can derive, after some work, two equations, one for each parameter, whose solutions provide the values of $`r_4`$ and $`I_4(0)`$ that minimise the $`\chi ^2`$ value, $`\chi ^2/I_4(0)`$$`=`$0 and $`\chi ^2/r_4`$$`=`$0. That is, we have derived the equations which minimise the $`\chi ^2`$ value for an $`r^{1/4}`$ profile from $`r`$$`=`$0 to $`r`$$`=`$$`r_{\mathrm{fin}}`$ (some final outer radius).

These equations are, respectively,:

$$4\frac{r_4}{b_4^4}\gamma (4,b_4\left(\frac{r_{\mathrm{fin}}}{r_n}x\right)^{1/4})=\left(\frac{I_n(0)}{I_4(0)}\right)^2S(r_{\mathrm{fin}},1)$$
(7)
and

$$4\frac{r_4}{b_4^5}\gamma (5,b_4\left(\frac{r_{\mathrm{fin}}}{r_n}x\right)^{1/4})=\left(\frac{I_n(0)}{I_4(0)}\right)^2S(r_{\mathrm{fin}},\left(\frac{r}{r_n}x\right)^{1/4}),$$
(8)
where

$$S(r_{\mathrm{fin}},f(r))_0^{r_{\mathrm{fin}}}e^{2b_n\left(\frac{r}{r_n}\right)^{1/n}+b_4\left(\frac{r}{r_n}x\right)^{1/4}}f(r)𝑑r,$$
(9)
$`xr_n/r_4`$ and $`r_{\mathrm{fin}}`$ denotes the outer radius of the fitted profile. From both equations we have derived, in equation 10, an implicit equation which gives the relation between $`r_n`$ and $`r_4`$ as a function of $`n`$ and $`r_{\mathrm{fin}}`$. This equation is independent of the intensity.

$$S(r_{\mathrm{fin}},1b_4\frac{\gamma (4,b_4\left(\frac{r_{\mathrm{fin}}}{r_n}x\right)^{1/4})}{\gamma (5,b_4\left(\frac{r_{\mathrm{fin}}}{r_n}x\right)^{1/4})}\left(\frac{r}{r_n}x\right)^{1/4})=0$$
(10)
In the limit, where $`r_{\mathrm{fin}}\mathrm{}`$, this simplifies to:

$$S(\mathrm{},1b_4\frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }(4)}{\mathrm{\Gamma }(5)}\left(\frac{r}{r_n}x\right)^{1/4})=0$$
(11)
The solutions of this equation are shown in graphical form in Figure 4. The value of $`x`$ can now be substituted into either equation 7 or 8 to obtain the ratio between the intensities. The result is shown in Figure 5.

We can now return our attention to the exponent $`\alpha `$; from the previous results we are able to determine the value of $`\alpha `$ which solves the equation $`\mathrm{ln}(r_n`$$`<`$$`I`$$`>`$$`{}_{n}{}^{\alpha }/r_4`$$`<`$$`I`$$`>`$$`{}_{4}{}^{\alpha })`$$`=`$0, and thereby keeps $`r_n`$$`<`$$`I`$$`>`$$`{}_{}{}^{\alpha }{}_{n}{}^{}`$ roughly constant. This is such that $`\mathrm{ln}(r_n/r_4)+\alpha \mathrm{ln}(`$$`<`$$`I`$$`>`$$`{}_{n}{}^{}/`$$`<`$$`I`$$`>`$$`{}_{4}{}^{})`$$`=`$0, which can be written as

$$\alpha (n)=\frac{\mathrm{ln}x}{\mathrm{ln}\left[\frac{n}{4}\frac{b_4^8}{b_n^{2n}}\frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }(2n)}{\mathrm{\Gamma }(8)}\left(4\frac{r_n}{x}\frac{1}{b_4^4}\frac{\gamma (4,b_4(\frac{r_{\mathrm{fin}}}{r_n}x)^{1/4}}{S(r_{\mathrm{fin}},1)}\right)^{1/2}\right]}.$$
(12)
Figure 6 shows the value of $`\alpha `$ as a function of $`n`$ for different $`r_{\mathrm{fin}}`$. It is noted that the value of $`\alpha `$ appears to be more or less constant at $``$0.7, and only weakly dependent of $`n`$ and $`r_{\mathrm{fin}}`$. This explains why the Fundamental Plane relation, as mentioned previously, comes out pretty much the same irrespective of which model has been used. In passing, we note that this is not the only relation which appears stable; for example, $`r_e^{1/\alpha }`$$`<`$$`I`$$`>`$e is also stable.

While $`r_e`$$`<`$$`I`$$`>`$$`{}_{}{}^{0.7}{}_{e}{}^{}`$ is stable for individual galaxies, irrespective of the value of $`n`$ used in the Sérsic model which derived these quantities, it seems to be a coincidence, rather than a natural consequence, that the same relation exists in the Fundamental Planes which have described the correlations between $`r_e`$, $`<`$$`I`$$`>`$e and central velocity dispersion for many different galaxies (Kelson et al. 2000). However, refined Fundamental Plane studies which have included the contribution from rotational energy, or used a global, rather than a central, velocity dispersion, have found an exponent of $``$1, in agreement with the expectation from the virial theorem (Busarello et al. 1997; Graham & Colless 1997; Prugniel & Simien 1997). We would therefore argue that for ’refined’ Fundamental Plane studies, one should be concerned about the real range of structural shapes (as evidenced in Figure 2), and not be contempt with a model that ignores this; $`r_e`$$`<`$$`I`$$`>`$$`{}_{}{}^{1.0}{}_{e}{}^{}`$ is not invariable with $`n`$.

## 5 Model-dependent versus model-independent parametrisation

Although the photometric parameters $`L_T`$, $`r_e`$ and $`<`$$`\mu `$$`>`$e are, at least mathematically, well defined quantities, their values do depend on the method used to measure them. Not just with regard to the particular form of the fitting function (i.e. the model used to fit either the surface brightness profile, or the ‘curve of growth’), but also with regard to the radial extent to which the galaxy profile is assumed to hold.

The curve of growth can asymptote into the noise well before the galaxy actually peeters out – truncated by the sky-background and short exposure times. Summing the galaxy magnitude within the isophotal ellipse where this occurs can result in an under-estimation of the total galaxy magnitude, and hence an under-estimation to the effective half-light radius, and an over-estimate to intensity of the surface brightness term. On the other hand, assuming that the galaxy surface brightness profile follows, all the way to infinity, the best-fitting model to the inner data points, may result in the attribution of substantially more light to the galaxy than actually exists.

### 5.1 Total galaxy luminosity

The effective half-light radius derived from the Sérsic model will be denoted $`r_{e,\mathrm{mod}}`$ from here on, to avoid confusion with the similar term derived in a model-independent way. The total luminosity associated with an $`r^{1/n}`$ model profile can be written as

$$L_T=I(0)r_{e,\mathrm{mod}}^2\frac{2\pi n}{b_n^{2n}}\mathrm{\Gamma }(2n).$$
(13)
When using the integrated surface brightness profile, or growth curve, the observer selects a finite radius, $`r_{\mathrm{fin}}`$, where the curve of growth becomes flat. The value of $`r_{\mathrm{fin}}`$ which one selects depends on the exposure time, and hence noise, in the outer parts of the galaxy image. If one accepts that the surface brightness profile out to $`r_{\mathrm{fin}}`$ is well described by a Sérsic law, contributing zero light at larger radii, then the ‘total’ luminosity obtained from direct measurements of the integrated surface brightness profile is

$$L(r_{\mathrm{fin}})=I(0)r_{e,\mathrm{mod}}^2\frac{2\pi n}{b_n^{2n}}\gamma (2n,b_n\left(\frac{r_{\mathrm{fin}}}{r_{e,\mathrm{mod}}}\right)^{\frac{1}{n}}).$$
(14)
For an $`r^{1/n}`$ profile that extends to infinity, the outer fraction of the total galaxy light beyond the radius $`r_{\mathrm{fin}}`$ is given by

$$F(r_{\mathrm{fin}})\frac{L_TL(r_{\mathrm{fin}})}{L_T}=1\frac{\gamma (2n,b_n(\frac{r_{\mathrm{fin}}}{r_{e,\mathrm{mod}}})^{\frac{1}{n}})}{\mathrm{\Gamma }(2n)}$$
(15)
This fractional difference to the total luminosity is plotted in Figure 7, as a function of $`r_{\mathrm{fin}}/r_{e,\mathrm{mod}}`$, for different values of $`n`$. When $`r_{\mathrm{fin}}/r_{e,\mathrm{mod}}`$$`=`$1, the fraction of the total galaxy luminosity outside $`r_{\mathrm{fin}}`$ is, by definition, 50 per cent (or 0.75 mag). For the de Vaucouleurs profile ($`n`$$`=`$4) the outer fraction to the luminosity is $``$15 per cent (0.18 mag) at a radius $`r_{\mathrm{fin}}`$ equal to four $`r_{e,\mathrm{mod}}`$.

Usually an observer knows, either in advance when preparing the observations, or after extraction of the light profiles, the surface brightness limit $`\mu _\mathrm{L}`$ of the image (that is, the surface brightness level of the last measurable isophote). For this reason, it is useful to plot (Figure 8) the parameter $`F(r_{\mathrm{fin}})`$ against the difference $`\mu _\mathrm{L}\mu _e`$ for various values of $`n`$. Here, $`F(r_{\mathrm{fin}})`$ is such that

$$F(r_{\mathrm{fin}})=1\frac{\gamma (2n,b_n+\frac{\mathrm{ln}(10)}{2.5}(\mu _L\mu _e))}{\mathrm{\Gamma }(2n)}$$
(16)
It is evident that, to reach the same value of $`F(r_{\mathrm{fin}})`$, the difference $`\mu _\mathrm{L}\mu _e`$ must be larger (that is, the images deeper) for bigger $`n`$. This is particularly important because $`\mu _e`$ and $`n`$ are positively (though weakly) correlated. For instance, the $`\mu _e`$$`n`$ plot from Caon et al. (1993) shows that, when $`n=2`$, $`\mu _e`$$``$22.5, while at $`n`$$`=`$8 $`\mu _e`$$``$23.5 (in B). The growth curve integrated out to a limiting surface brightness of $`\mu _\mathrm{L}`$$`=`$27 mag/arcsec2 will miss about 5% of the total luminosity when $`n`$$`=`$2, and 22% when $`n`$$`=`$8.

### 5.2 Effective radius

The two different estimates to the total galaxy luminosity (Eq. 13 and Eq. 14) result in two different estimates for the effective half-light radius. Taking the truncated profile, we define the observed effective half light radius $`r_{e,\mathrm{obs}}`$ such that

$$L(r_{e,\mathrm{obs}})\frac{L(r_{\mathrm{fin}})}{2}.$$
(17)
This can be expanded to give

$$2\gamma (2n,b_n(\frac{r_{e,\mathrm{obs}}}{r_{e,\mathrm{mod}}})^{\frac{1}{n}})=\gamma (2n,b_n(\frac{r_{\mathrm{fin}}}{r_{e,\mathrm{mod}}})^{\frac{1}{n}}).$$
(18)
Once the value of $`r_{\mathrm{fin}}`$ is selected, and $`r_{e,\mathrm{mod}}`$ and $`n`$ derived, one can compute the ratio between $`r_{e,\mathrm{obs}}`$ and $`r_{e,\mathrm{mod}}`$. Figure 9 shows this ratio for different values of $`n`$ and $`r_{\mathrm{fin}}/r_{e,\mathrm{mod}}`$. As $`n`$ increases, for a fixed $`r_{\mathrm{fin}}/r_{e,\mathrm{mod}}`$ ratio, the $`r_{e,\mathrm{obs}}/r_{e,\mathrm{mod}}`$ ratio decreases from 1. For a de Vaucouleurs profile observed out to 4$`r_{e,\mathrm{mod}}`$, the radius containing half of the ‘observed’ galaxy light, $`r_{e,\mathrm{obs}}`$, is 3/4 of the radius, $`r_{e,\mathrm{mod}}`$, coming from the model extrapolation to infinity.

### 5.3 Effective surface brightness

The Sérsic surface brightness profile $`\mu (r)`$ can be written as

$$\mu (r)=\mu _0+\frac{2.5b_n}{\mathrm{ln}(10)}\left(\frac{r}{r_{e,\mathrm{mod}}}\right)^{1/n},$$
(19)
where $`\mu _0`$ is the central surface brightness. The effective surface brightness, $`\mu _e`$, is the surface brightness at the effective half-light radius. Therefore, for an $`r^{1/n}`$ model which extends to infinity, it is given by $`\mu _{e,\mathrm{mod}}`$$`=`$$`\mu _0`$$`+`$$`2.5b_n/\mathrm{ln}(10)`$. The difference between the model value and the value assuming a truncated profile is

$$\mathrm{\Delta }\mu _e=\frac{2.5b_n}{ln(10)}\left[1\left(\frac{r_{e,\mathrm{obs}}}{r_{e,\mathrm{mod}}}\right)^{1/n}\right].$$
(20)
The mean effective surface brightness is defined as:

$$<\mu >_e2.5\mathrm{log}\frac{L(r_e)}{\pi r_e^2},$$
(21)
where $`r_e`$ can be either $`r_{e,\mathrm{mod}}`$ or $`r_{e,\mathrm{obs}}`$. The difference, $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$$`<`$$`\mu `$$`>`$e$``$$`<`$$`\mu `$$`>`$e,mod$``$$`<`$$`\mu `$$`>`$e,obs is given by the expression

$$\mathrm{\Delta }<\mu >_e=2.5\mathrm{log}\left[\frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }(2n)}{2\gamma (2n,b_n(\frac{r_{e,\mathrm{obs}}}{r_{e,\mathrm{mod}}})^{\frac{1}{n}})}\left(\frac{r_{e,\mathrm{obs}}}{r_{e,\mathrm{mod}}}\right)^2\right]$$
(22)
Figure 10 shows both $`\mathrm{\Delta }\mu _e`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$$`<`$$`\mu `$$`>`$e as a function of $`r_{\mathrm{fin}}/r_{e,\mathrm{mod}}`$ for different values of $`n`$.

## 6 Conclusions

We have shown that the correlation between Elliptical galaxy size ($`r_e`$) and luminous structure ($`n`$, or $`k_L`$) is not only real, but was already contained in the known correlations between the other global, model-independent photometric parameters: $`L_T`$, $`r_e`$ and $`I_e`$. While parameter coupling in the fitting process can certainly contribute to the observed correlation, it can not account for it.

We have redefined the galaxy concentration index, rendering it almost independent of the limiting magnitude and/or radius of the galaxian map. For a Sérsic model, the new index displays a monotonic behaviour with $`n`$.

We have shown, through a mathematical analysis, why the quantity $`<`$$`I`$$`>`$$`{}_{e}{}^{\alpha }r_{e}^{}`$, with $`\alpha `$$``$0.7, is fairly constant and insensitive to both $`n`$ and the radius out to which the profile is fitted. Intriguingly, because $`\alpha `$ is practically equal to the exponent on the intensity term in the Fundamental Planes constructed with the quantities $`r_e`$, $`<`$$`I`$$`>`$e and central velocity dispersion, these Fundamental Planes are insensitive to galaxy structure. However, more refined studies which further take into account dynamical non-homology, rotational energy and/or consider metallicity effects, find a different exponent. Consequently, the use of an $`r^{1/4}`$ law to obtain $`r_e`$ and $`<`$$`I`$$`>`$ can affect these Fundamental Plane relations.

Galaxian images are generally limited in their radial extension by noise, sky subtraction errors or distorsions in the outer parts; it is therefore useful to know how the photometric parameters vary as a function of the radius out to which the surface brightness distribution is integrated. Galaxies described with larger shape parameters ($`n`$) require more extended (in units of $`r_e`$), or deeper (with respect to $`\mu _e`$), observations in order not to miss an important fraction of the total light. For example, when $`n4`$ one will obtain significantly smaller effective radii (by a factor of 2 or more) and brighter effective surface brightnesses (by 1 mag or more) if one only integrates to $``$2 effective radii.

Unfortunately, the radial extent to galaxian images cannot simply be increased as far as one desires by integrating for longer, even if galaxies are of infinite radius. If the limiting factor were the photon noise from a homogeneous sky background, then the signal-to-noise ratio would be proportional to the square root of the integration time. However, a further contribution to the sky background noise is given by scattered light and by faint sources which make up the extragalactic background light (a vivid representation is provided by imagining a galaxy superposed on the Hubble Deep Field). Dalcanton and Bernstein (2000) carried out a full analysis of the sky background noise sources and of the limiting surface brightness which can be achieved by deep imaging, finding limits of $`\mu _B29.5`$ mag arcsec-2 and $`\mu _R29`$ mag arcsec-2. This corresponds to $`10`$ effective radii for a bright elliptical with $`\mu _e(B)23.5`$ and $`n=8`$, and $`7`$ effective radii for a low-luminosity elliptical with $`\mu _e(B)22.5`$ and $`n=2`$.

In Caon et al. (1990, 1994) the light profiles of elliptical galaxies, reach a surface brightness limit of $`\mu _B27.5`$ (typically 4–5 effective radii). There is no evidence for an outer truncation similar to that observed in the disks of spirals (Pohlen, Dettmar & ütticke 2000 and references therein). As far as we know, nobody so far has detected definite edges in elliptical galaxies.

## Acknowledgments

We are indebted to Ignacio García de la Rosa and Aurora Sicilia who helped initiate the early phases to some of the issues addressed here.