format: text

text:
# Power corrections in heavy-to-light decays at large recoil energy Talk given at ICHEP 2002, Amsterdam, July 2002. Based on work with A. Chapovsky, M. Beneke and Th. Feldmann [3]

## 1 INTRODUCTION

The strong interaction physics in $`B`$ decays is characterized by the presence of several distance scales. The general idea of factorization in QCD is to separate the dynamics at short distances (which can be treated perturbatively) from the long-distance physics (encoded in hadronic matrix elements like decay constants or form factors). There are different techniques to achieve this separation. One is the detailed analysis of Feynman graphs, used for instance in  to establish QCD factorization for exclusive $`B`$ decays. Here I focus on an effective field theory approach, whose principal objects are operators and fields. This framework is very general and well suited to be applied to a wide class of processes.

As an explicit application I consider exclusive $`B`$ decays to light mesons (e.g. $`B\pi \mathrm{}\nu `$, $`BK^{}\mathrm{}^+\mathrm{}^{}`$) in kinematics where the recoil energy of the light meson is large, $`Em_b`$. In the limit $`m_b\mathrm{}`$ symmetry relations between the various form factors describing the $`B\pi `$ or $`BK^{}`$ transition emerge , which greatly reduce hadronic uncertainties when analyzing these decays in the Standard Model and beyond. These relations receive corrections in inverse powers of $`m_b`$, which we have systematically studied in effective field theory . They also receive corrections in $`\alpha _s`$ from the heavy quark decay vertex (which are part of the effective theory) and from hard interactions of the spectator quark in the $`B`$ meson (which have so far only been treated by direct calculation of the relevant Feynman graphs in QCD ).

## 2 EFFECTIVE FIELD THEORY

To set up the effective field theory appropriate for a given process one first identifies the relevant momentum regions in the corresponding Feynman graphs. One wants to keep in the theory only the nearly on-shell momentum modes that directly connect to the external hadrons. In the decays of our study (see Fig. 1) this is a heavy quark in the initial $`B`$ meson, a cluster of light quarks and gluons which move approximately collinear to each other and form the fast outgoing meson, and “ultrasoft” gluons in either the initial or final state. (At this point we exclude the hard spectator quark interactions mentioned above.) Modes with large momenta $`k^\mu m_b`$ are “integrated out” from the theory: this is done in perturbation theory and provides the Wilson coefficients associated with the shaded blob in the figure. The same happens to “soft” gluons with momenta $`k^\mu \sqrt{m_b\mathrm{\Lambda }_{\mathrm{QCD}}}`$. The heavy quark and its interactions with ultrasoft gluons is described in conventional heavy-quark effective theory (HQET), and the dynamics of collinear and ultrasoft modes in the soft-collinear effective theory (SCET) pioneered by Bauer et al. .

For each momentum mode a separate field is introduced, e.g. $`A_c^\mu (x)`$ and $`A_{\mathrm{𝑢𝑠}}^\mu (x)`$ for collinear and ultrasoft gluons. For these fields one then must find the Lagrangian and current operators which reproduce the results of QCD to a given accuracy in a power-counting parameter $`\lambda `$, in our case given by $`\sqrt{\mathrm{\Lambda }_{\mathrm{QCD}}/m_b}`$. It proves useful to project out the large spinor components of fermion fields and to integrate out the small ones. In HQET this is the usual projection on $`h_v(x)=\frac{1}{2}(1+v/)Q_v(x)`$, where $`Q_v(x)=e^{im_b(vx)}Q(x)`$ has the large phase of the full heavy quark field removed. For collinear quarks the large component is

$$\xi (x)=\frac{1}{4}n/_{}n/_+q(x),$$

where $`n_{}`$ and $`n_+`$ are lightlike reference vectors, $`n_{}`$ giving the direction of the collinear particles and $`n_+`$ the opposite direction. In contrast to  we do not split off the large phase of collinear fields in our approach . For ultrasoft quarks all spinor components are of same size and hence kept in the theory.

To decide whether an operator is relevant to a given accuracy in $`\lambda `$ one determines power counting rules for momentum components (collinear momenta are large in the $`n_{}`$ direction and small in the others), for fields, their derivatives, etc. Finally, the effective theory “inherits” part of the gauge invariance of full QCD, and one has to define appropriate gauge transformations for the effective fields to implement this.

### 2.1 The effective Lagrangian

To obtain the effective Lagrangian for collinear and ultrasoft quarks and gluons one can start from the QCD quark Lagrangian $`=\overline{q}iD/q`$, separate out the different momentum modes, and integrate out the small spinor components of the collinear quark field (using e.g. path integral methods). The result is

$$_c=\overline{\xi }(in_{}D+iD/_{}W\frac{1}{in_+}W^{}iD/_{})\frac{n/_+}{2}\xi $$

if one neglects ultrasoft quarks. Because of the inverse derivative $`(n_+)^1`$ the action is nonlocal. It is explicitly gauge invariant: the sum $`A=A_c+A_{\mathrm{𝑢𝑠}}`$ of gluon fields appears in the covariant derivative $`D=igA`$ and in the Wilson line

$$W(x)=P\mathrm{exp}\{ig_{\mathrm{}}^0dsn_+A(x+sn_+).\}$$

One must still expand $`_c`$ in $`\lambda `$: the components of $`A_c^\mu `$ and $`A_{\mathrm{𝑢𝑠}}^\mu `$ have different scaling in $`\lambda `$, which requires a Taylor expansion of $`D`$ and $`W`$. Furthermore, $`A_{\mathrm{𝑢𝑠}}(x)`$ varies more slowly in $`x`$ than collinear fields with their large-momentum modes, so that $`A_{\mathrm{𝑢𝑠}}(x)`$ must be appropriately Taylor expanded in $`x`$.

To leading order in $`\lambda `$ ultrasoft quarks just appear in $`_{\mathrm{𝑢𝑠}}=\overline{q}_{\mathrm{𝑢𝑠}}iD/_{\mathrm{𝑢𝑠}}q_{\mathrm{𝑢𝑠}}`$, but in higher orders they couple to collinear fields. The resulting Lagrangian including $`O(\lambda )`$ and $`O(\lambda ^2)`$ corrections also contains ultrasoft Wilson lines $`Z`$, obtained from $`W`$ by setting $`A_c=0`$.

### 2.2 The effective heavy-to-light current

Before decaying via an electroweak current a heavy quark can radiate collinear gluons, which puts it off shell by an amount of order $`m_b^2`$. The corresponding diagrams have no place in the effective theory and must be summed into an effective vertex. This leads one to match the QCD heavy quark field onto an effective field, $`Qe^{im_b(vx)}Q_{\mathrm{eff}}(A_c,A_{\mathrm{𝑢𝑠}},h_v)`$. By explicitly summing diagrams or by solving the Dirac equation for $`Q_{\mathrm{eff}}`$ in an external field $`A=A_c+A_{\mathrm{𝑢𝑠}}`$ one obtains $`Q_{\mathrm{eff}}`$ as

$$WZ^{}Q_v\frac{1}{𝒱^21}(𝒱/𝒱/WZ^{}WZ^{}𝒱/_{\mathrm{us}}𝒱/_{\mathrm{us}})Q_v$$

including corrections of order $`\lambda `$ and $`\lambda ^2`$. Here $`𝒱^\mu =v^\mu +iD^\mu /m_b`$ is the reparametrization invariant “velocity” known from HQET.

Matching of the QCD light quark field onto an effective field, $`qq_{\mathrm{eff}}(A_c,A_{\mathrm{𝑢𝑠}},\xi )`$, is readily performed in SCET. The complete QCD current is matched as $`\overline{q}\mathrm{\Gamma }Qe^{im_b(vx)}\overline{q}{}_{\mathrm{eff}}{}^{}\mathrm{\Gamma }Q_{\mathrm{eff}}`$ and finally has to be Taylor expanded in $`\lambda `$ as in the case of the effective Lagrangian.

## 3 POWER CORRECTIONS TO FORM FACTORS

The symmetry relations for $`E,m_b\mathrm{}`$ between the transition form factors from $`B`$ to a light meson $`L=\pi ,\rho ,K^{},\mathrm{}`$ receive corrections in powers of $`\lambda =\sqrt{\mathrm{\Lambda }_{\mathrm{QCD}}/m_b}`$, which can be systematically described in the effective theory of Sec. 2 by matching the QCD matrix elements $`L|\overline{q}\mathrm{\Gamma }Q|B`$ onto $`L|\overline{q}{}_{\mathrm{eff}}{}^{}\mathrm{\Gamma }Q_{\mathrm{eff}}|B`$. Projecting $`\overline{q}_{\mathrm{eff}}`$ and $`Q_{\mathrm{eff}}`$ on their large and small spinor components one finds that

1. at leading order in $`\lambda `$ only the large components are relevant. This gives 1 (2) independent form factors for the transition to a pseudoscalar (vector) meson .
2. the $`O(\lambda )`$ corrections involve the small components of either $`\overline{q}_{\mathrm{eff}}`$ or $`Q_{\mathrm{eff}}`$, and one remains with 2 (5) independent form factors.
3. the $`O(\lambda ^2)`$ corrections come from the small components of both fields. Hence no symmetry relations are left to this accuracy, and one has 3 (7) independent form factors as in full QCD.

There is a caveat concerning the corrections at order $`\lambda `$. The corresponding operators in the effective theory involve different parton configurations in the light meson than the leading-order operators, for instance with an additional transversely polarized gluon. There may well be further dynamical suppression of their matrix elements, bringing them down from $`O(\lambda )`$ to $`O(\lambda ^2)`$. Whether this happens requires knowledge of the light meson wave functions which goes beyond the scope of SCET. We remark that these putative $`O(\lambda )`$ corrections affect the form factor relations used in the analysis of the forward-backward asymmetry in $`BK^{}\mathrm{}^+\mathrm{}^{}`$, see .

## 4 SUMMARY

We have performed a systematic analysis of power corrections to soft-collinear factorization in the effective field theory formalism. The interactions between collinear and ultrasoft quarks and gluons are described in SCET, whose effective Lagrangian was obtained including the power corrections of first and second order in $`\lambda `$. Heavy-to-light meson decays at large recoil energy can be described by the effective actions of SCET and HQET plus the effective heavy-to-light current, which was also obtained including $`O(\lambda ^2)`$ corrections. Aspects of the $`O(\lambda )`$ corrections were previously investigated in .

Among the 2 (5) leading-order symmetry relations between the transition form factors for $`B`$ to pseudoscalar (vector) mesons, 1 (3) receive power corrections at order $`\sqrt{\mathrm{\Lambda }_{\mathrm{QCD}}/m_b}`$. Whether these are further suppressed dynamically remains to be investigated. To accuracy $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{\mathrm{QCD}}/m_b`$ no form factor relations are left. Phenomenological analyses of the corresponding decays thus remain dependent on models for the relevant hadronic physics.


text:
# Untitled Document

Opérades Lie-admissibles

Elisabeth REMM

Laboratoire de Mathématiques et Applications, 4, rue des Frères Lumière, 68093 Mulhouse cedex, France

E-mail : E.Remm@uha.fr

Abstract. The aim of this paper is to present remarkable classes of Lie-admissible algebras containing in particular the associative algebras, the Vinberg and pre-Lie algebras. We determine the associated operads and their dual operads.

Résumé. Le but de cette note est de présenter des classes remarquables d’algèbres Lie-admissibles qui contiennent entre autres les algèbres associatives, de Vinberg et pré-Lie et de déterminer leurs opérades associées et les opérades duales.

1. Algèbres Lie-Admissibles.

Soient $`(A,\mu )`$ une $`𝕂`$-algèbre sur un corps commutatif de caractéristique 0. Notons $`a_\mu :A^3A`$ l’associateur de la loi $`\mu `$ :

$$a_\mu (X_1,X_2,X_3)=\mu (\mu (X_1,X_2),X_3)\mu (X_1,\mu (X_2,X_3)).$$

Soit $`_n`$ le groupe symétrique d’ordre $`n`$. Pour tout $`\sigma _3`$, on pose

$$\sigma (X_1,X_2,X_3)=(X_{\sigma ^1\left(1\right)},X_{\sigma ^1\left(2\right)},X_{\sigma ^1\left(3\right)}).$$

DEFINITION 1 : L’algèbre $`𝒜=(A,\mu )`$ est dite Lie-admissible (cf ) si sa loi $`\mu `$ vérifie

$$\underset{\sigma _3}{}\left(1\right)^{\epsilon \left(\sigma \right)}a_\mu \sigma =0.$$

Soit $`\mu `$ une loi d’algèbre Lie-admissible; alors

$$[X,Y]_\mu :=\mu (X,Y)\mu (Y,X)$$

est une loi d’algèbre de Lie. Si $`𝒜=(A,\mu )`$ est Lie-admissible, on notera $`𝒜_L=(A,[,]_\mu )`$ l’algèbre de Lie ainsi définie.

Remarque. Pour toute algèbre de Lie $`𝔤`$, il existe une algèbre Lie-admissible $`𝒜=(A,\mu )`$ telle que $`𝔤=𝒜_L.`$ En effet $`\mu (X,Y)=\frac{1}{2}[X,Y]`$ est une loi Lie-admissible vérifiant la condition demandée. Notons également que dans le cas de la dimension finie, la dérivée covariante () d’une connection de Levi Civita associée à une forme quadratique définie positive détermine également une loi Lie-admissible.

2. Classes d’algèbres Lie-admissibles.

2.1. Algèbres $`G_i`$-associatives.

Notons $`G_1=\left\{Id\right\}`$, $`G_2=\{Id,\tau _{12}\}`$, $`G_3=\{Id,\tau _{23}\}`$, $`G_4=\{Id,\tau _{13}\}`$, $`G_5=\{Id,3cycles\}=𝒜_3`$, et $`G_6=_3`$ les différents sous-groupes de $`_3.`$

DEFINITION 2 : Une $`𝕂`$-algèbre $`𝒜=(A,\mu )`$ est dite $`G_i`$-associative si sa loi $`\mu `$ vérifie

$$\underset{\sigma G_i}{}(1)^{\epsilon \left(\sigma \right)}a_\mu \sigma =0.()$$

Notons qu’une algèbre $`(A,\mu )`$ vérifiant $`()`$ est nécessairement Lie-admissible.

2.2. Description.

a) $`G_1=\left\{Id\right\}`$. Les algèbres correspondantes sont les algèbres associatives.

b) $`G_2=\{Id,\tau _{12}\}`$. La relation $`()`$ s’écrit

$$\mu (\mu (X_1,X_2),X_3)\mu (X_1,\mu (X_2,X_3))\mu (\mu (X_2,X_1),X_3)+\mu (X_2,\mu (X_1,X_3))=0$$

Les algèbres $`G_2`$-associatives sont les algèbres de Vinberg (appelées aussi algèbres symétriques-gauche)  . Si $`𝒜`$ est de dimension finie, l’algèbre de Lie associée $`𝒜_L`$ est munie d’une structure affine.

c) $`G_3=\{Id,\tau _{23}\}`$ Les algèbres correspondantes sont les algèbres pré-Lie (voir ). Ces algèbres sont aussi appelées symétriques-droite. Notons que si la loi $`x.y`$ est pré-Lie, alors la loi $`xy=y.x`$ est de Vinberg.

Les algèbres $`G_4`$ et $`G_5`$-associatives ne semblent pas avoir fait l’objet d’études particulières. Notons que si $`\mu `$ est $`G_5`$-associative, elle vérifie :

$`\mu (\mu (X_1,X_2),X_3)\mu (X_1,\mu (X_2,X_3))+\mu (\mu (X_2,X_3),X_1)`$
$`\mu (X_2,\mu (X_3,X_1))+\mu (\mu (X_3,X_1),X_2)\mu (X_3,\mu (X_1,X_2))=0.`$
Si l’on suppose de plus que $`\mu `$ est anticommutative$`([,]_\mu =2\mu )`$ la relation ci-dessus est la condition de Jacobi de la loi d’algèbre de Lie $`\mu .`$ Dans l’optique d’une des- cription d’une version ”non-commutative” des algèbres de Lie donnée par exemple par les algèbres de Leibniz , les algèbres $`G_5`$-associatives peuvent être également considérées comme des candidats naturels.

3. Opérades associées aux algèbres $`G_i`$-associatives

Soit $`𝕂\left[_n\right]`$ la $`𝕂`$-algèbre du groupe symétrique $`_n`$. Une opérade $`𝒫`$ est définie par une suite d’espaces vectoriels sur $`𝕂`$, $`𝒫(n)`$, $`n1`$ telle que $`𝒫(n)`$ soit un module sur $`𝕂\left[_n\right]`$ et par des applications de composition

$$_i:𝒫(n)𝒫(m)𝒫(n+m1)i=1,\mathrm{},n$$

satisfaisant des propriétés ”associatives”, les axiomes de May .

Tout $`𝕂\left[_n\right]`$-module $`E`$ engendre une opérade libre notée $`(E)`$ () vérifiant $`(E)(1)=𝕂`$, $`(E)(2)=E`$. En particulier si $`E=𝕂\left[_2\right]`$, le module libre $`\left(E\right)(n)`$ admet comme base les ”produits parenthésés” de $`n`$ variables indexées par $`\{1,2,\mathrm{},n\}`$ .

Soit $`E`$ un $`𝕂\left[_2\right]`$-module et $`R`$ un $`𝕂\left[_3\right]`$-sous-module de $`(E)(3)`$. On note $``$ l’idéal engendré par $`R`$, c’est-à-dire l’intersection de tous les idéaux $``$ de $`(E)`$ tels que $`(1)=\left\{0\right\}`$, $`(2)=\left\{0\right\}`$ et $`(3)=R`$.

On appelle opérade binaire quadratique engendrée par $`E`$ et par les relations $`R`$ l’opérade $`𝒫(𝕂,E,R)`$, notée également $`(E)/`$, définie par :

$$𝒫(𝕂,E,R)(n)=(E)(n)/(n).$$

Son opérade quadratique duale est définie par

$$𝒫^!=𝒫(𝕂,E^{},R^{})$$

$`E^{}`$ est le dual de $`E`$ muni de l’action de $`_n`$ duale tensorisée par la représentation signature.

3.1. L’opérade $`ieAdm`$

Considérons $`R_6`$ le $`𝕂\left[_3\right]`$-sous-module de $`\left(E\right)(3)`$ engendré par le vecteur

$`u_6`$ $`=`$ $`x_1.(x_2.x_3)+x_2.(x_3.x_1)+x_3.(x_1.x_2)x_2.(x_1.x_3)x_3.(x_2.x_1)x_1.(x_3.x_2)`$
$`(x_1.x_2).x_3(x_2.x_3).x_1(x_3.x_1).x_2+(x_2.x_1).x_3+(x_3.x_2).x_1+(x_1.x_3).x_2`$
et soit $`_6`$ l’idéal de $`\left(E\right)`$ engendré par $`R_6`$.

DEFINITION 3 : L’opérade Lie-admissible, notée $`ieAdm`$ est l’opérade binaire quadratique

$$ieAdm=\left(E\right)/_6.$$

3.2. On peut également définir les opérades binaires quadratiques associées à chacune des algèbres $`G_i`$-associatives, ($`i=1,\mathrm{},5`$) :

$`i=1`$: $`𝒜ss=\left(E\right)/_1`$$`R_1`$ est le $`𝕂\left[_3\right]`$-sous-module engendré par les vecteurs

$$x_1.(x_2.x_3)(x_1.x_2).x_3,$$

$`𝒜ss`$ est l’opérade des algèbres associatives.

$`i=2`$: $`𝒱inb=\left(E\right)/_2`$ avec $`R_2`$ engendré par

$$x_1.(x_2.x_3)x_2.(x_1.x_3)(x_1.x_2).x_3+(x_2.x_1).x_3,$$

$`i=3`$: $`𝒫reLie=\left(E\right)/_3`$ avec $`R_3`$ engendré par

$$x_1.(x_2.x_3)x_1.(x_3.x_2)(x_1.x_2).x_3+(x_1.x_3).x_2,$$

$`i=4`$: $`G_4𝒜ss`$=$`\left(E\right)/_4`$ avec $`R_4`$ engendré par

$$x_1.(x_2.x_3)x_3.(x_2.x_1)(x_1.x_2).x_3+(x_3.x_2).x_1,$$

$`i=5`$: $`G_5𝒜ss`$=$`\left(E\right)/_5`$ avec $`R_5`$ engendré par

$$x_1.(x_2.x_3)+x_2.(x_3.x_1)+x_3.(x_1.x_2)(x_1.x_2).x_3(x_2.x_3).x_1(x_3.x_1).x_2.$$

4. Opérades duales associées aux algèbres $`G_i`$-associatives

Considérons le produit scalaire sur $`(E)(3)`$ pour lequel les vecteurs de base sont orthogonaux et tel que

$`<`$ $`x_i.(x_j.x_k),x_i.(x_j.x_k)>=sgn(\begin{array}{c}\text{1}\text{2}\text{3}\\ i\hfill & j\hfill & k\hfill \end{array})`$
$`<`$ $`(x_i.x_j).x_k,(x_i.x_j).x_k>=sgn(\begin{array}{c}\text{1}\text{2}\text{3}\\ i\hfill & j\hfill & k\hfill \end{array})`$
$`sgn(\sigma )=(1)^{\epsilon (\sigma )}`$ est la signature de $`\sigma `$.

Soit $`R_6`$ le $`𝕂\left[_3\right]`$-sous-module déterminant l’opérade $`ieAdm`$. L’orthogonal par rapport au produit scalaire défini ci-dessus, $`R_6^{}`$ , est de dimension $`11`$. Soit $`R_6`$ le $`𝕂\left[_3\right]`$-sous-module de $`(E)(3)`$ engendré par les relations

$`(x_{\sigma (1)}x_{\sigma (2)})x_{\sigma (3)}x_{\sigma (1)}(x_{\sigma (2)}x_{\sigma (3)}),`$
$`(x_{\sigma (1)}x_{\sigma (2)})x_{\sigma (3)}(x_{\sigma (1)}x_{\sigma (3)})x_{\sigma (2)},`$
$`(x_{\sigma (1)}x_{\sigma (2)})x_{\sigma (3)}(x_{\sigma (2)}x_{\sigma (1)})x_{\sigma (3)}.`$
Alors $`dimR_6^{}=11`$ et $`<u,v>=0`$ pour tout $`vR_6^{}`$ , $`u`$ étant le vecteur générateur de $`R_6.`$ Ceci implique que $`R_6^{}R_6^{}`$ et par définition l’opérade duale de $`(E)/_6=ieAdm`$ notée $`ieAdm^!`$ est par définition l’opérade binaire quadratique $`(E)/_6^{}.`$

PROPOSITION 1. Une algèbre $`A`$ sur l’opérade $`ieAdm^!`$ est une algèbre associative qui est abélienne d’ordre 3, c’est-à-dire vérifiant

$$abc=acb=bac$$

pour tout $`a,b,cA`$.

Les opérades duales $`𝒜ss^!`$ et $`𝒫reLie^!`$ ont été déterminées dans  et . La première étant autoduale vérifie $`𝒜ss^!=𝒜ss`$ et la deuxième correspond à l’opérade $`𝒫erm`$.

PROPOSITION 2. Les opérades duales de $`𝒱inb,`$ $`G_4𝒜ss,`$ $`G_5𝒜ss`$ sont les opérades quadratiques dont les algèbres correspondantes sont associatives et vérifient respectivement :

\- pour $`𝒱inb^!`$ : $`abc=bac`$.

\- pour $`G_4𝒜ss^!`$ : $`abc=cba`$.

\- pour $`G_5𝒜ss^!`$ : $`abc=bca=cab.`$

Esquisse de preuve. $`R_2^{}`$ est le $`𝕂\left[_3\right]`$-sous-module de $`(E)(3)`$ engendré par les vecteurs

$`(x_1.(x_2.x_3)(x_1.x_2).x_3),(x_1.(x_2.x_3)x_2.(x_1.x_3)),`$
$`(x_1.(x_2.x_3)(x_2.x_1).x_3)`$
pour tout $`x_1,x_2,x_3E`$.

De même

$`R_4^{}=(x_1.(x_2.x_3)(x_1.x_2).x_3),(x_1.(x_2.x_3)x_3.(x_2.x_1)),`$
$`x_1.(x_2.x_3)(x_3.x_2).x_1)`$
$`R_5^{}=(x_1.(x_2.x_3)(x_1.x_2).x_3),(x_1.(x_2.x_3)x_2.(x_3.x_1)),`$
$`x_1.(x_2.x_3)(x_2.x_3).x_1),(x_1.(x_2.x_3)x_3.(x_1.x_2)),(x_1.(x_2.x_3)(x_3.x_1).x_2)`$
et $`dimR_4^{}=9,dimR_5^{}=10.`$ Il suffit ensuite de remarquer que ($`(E)/)^!`$ est par définition l’opérade binaire quadratique $`(E)/^{}`$ d’où le résultat. $`\mathrm{}`$

5. Dualité de Koszul des opérades provenant des algèbres $`G_i`$-associatives.

Rappelons qu’une opérade quadratique $`𝒫`$ est dite de Koszul si pour toute $`𝒫`$-algèbre libre $`F_𝒫(V)`$ on a $`H_i^𝒫(F_𝒫(V))=0,i>0`$.

PROPOSITION 3. Les opérades $`𝒜ss`$, $`𝒱inb`$, $`𝒫reLie`$ sont de Koszul. Les opérades $`G_4𝒜ss`$ et $`G_5𝒜ss`$ ne sont pas de Koszul.

Preuve. En effet d’après  et  les opérades $`𝒜ss`$, $`𝒫reLie`$ sont de Koszul. Compte tenu des relations liant $`𝒫reLie`$ et $`𝒱inb`$, cette dernière est aussi de Koszul. Pour les deux autres, nous allons montrer qu’elles ne sont pas de Koszul en utilisant leur série de Poincaré et le critère dû à Ginzburg-Kapranov . La série est définie, pour une opérade $`𝒫`$, par

$$g_𝒫(x):=\underset{i=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}(1)^ndim𝒫(n)\frac{x^n}{n!},$$

Les séries de Poincaré d’une opérade de Koszul $`𝒫`$ et de sa duale $`𝒫^!`$ sont reliées par l’équation fonctionnelle

$$g_𝒫(g_{𝒫^!}(x))=x.$$

On a

$$g_{𝒢_4𝒜ss}(x)=x+x^2\frac{3}{2}x^3+\frac{59}{4!}x^4+\mathrm{},g_{𝒢_4𝒜ss^!}(x)=x+x^2\frac{1}{2}x^3\frac{1}{4}x^4+\mathrm{}$$

$$g_{𝒢_5𝒜ss}(x)=x+x^2\frac{10}{3!}x^3+\frac{39}{4!}x^4+\mathrm{},g_{𝒢_5𝒜ss^!}(x)=x+x^2\frac{1}{3}x^3+\frac{1}{12}x^4+\mathrm{}$$

et ces deux séries ne sont pas respectivement inverses l’une de l’autre. Ces opérades ne sont pas de Koszul d’après .

BIBLIOGRAPHIE :

 Albert A.A., On the power-associative rings, Trans. Amer. Math. Soc. 64 (1948) 552–593.

 Chapoton F., Algèbres pré-Lie et algèbres de Hopf liées à la renormalisation, Note aux C.R.A.Sc. Paris t.332 Série 1 (2001) 681-684.

 Chapoton F., Livernet M., Pre-Lie algebra and the rooted trees operad, Internat. Math. Res. Notices 8 (2001) 395-408.

 Ginzburg V., Kapranov M., Koszul duality for operads, Duke Math Journal 76,1 (1994) 203-272.

 Gerstenhaber M., The cohomology structure of an associative ring, Ann of math.(2) 78 (1963) 267-288.

 Kobayashi S., Nomizu K., Foundations of differential geometry, Vol.I, John Wiley & Sons, Inc., New York, 1963.

 Loday J.L., La renaissance des opérades, Séminaire Bourbaki 1994/95. Astérisque 237 (1996) 47-74.

 Loday J.L., Une version non commutative des algèbres de Lie: les algèbres de Leibniz, Ens. Math. 39 (1993) 269-293.

 May J.P., Geometry of iterated loop spaces, Lect. Notes in Math. 271, Springer-Verlag, 1972.

 Nijenhuis A., Sur une classe de propriétés communes a quelques types différents d’algèbres, Enseignement math.(2) 14 (1968) 225-277.

 Remm E., Structures affines sur les algèbres de Lie et opérades Lie-admissibles, Thèse, Mulhouse 2001.


text:
# References

Dark energy or missing energy is one of the contemporary issues the physics community is more interested in due, mainly, to a relatively recent (revolutionary) discovery that our present universe is in a stage of accelerated expansion, that was preceded by an early period of decelerated expansion. This missing component of the material content of the universe is the responsible for the current stage of accelerated expansion and accounts for 2/3 of the total energy content of the universe, determining its destiny. This is a new form of energy with repulsive gravity and possible implications for quantum theory and supersymmetry breaking.

A self-interacting, slowly varying scalar field, most often called quintessence, has been meant to account for the dark energy component. In any successful model of this class, the scalar field energy density should be subdominant at high redshift (in the past) and dominant at low redshift (at present and in the future) in order to agree with observations. A variety of self-interaction potentials for the quintessence field has been studied. Among them, the simplest exponential potential (a single exponential) model is unacceptable because it can not produce the transition from subdominant to dominant energy density. Other combinations of exponential potentials have been also studied. Combinations of exponentials are interesting alternatives since these arise in more fundamental (particle) contexts: supergravity and superstring, where these types of potentials appear after dimensional reduction.

In most cases the occurrence of a self-interaction potential for the scalar field makes difficult to solve analytically the field equations, although some techniques for deriving solutions have been developed. In Ref., for instance, the form of the scale factor is given a priori and, consequently, the self-interaction potential can be found that obeys the field equations. This method has been repeatedly used as well as interesting applications of it. However there are cases when exact solutions can be found once the form of the potential is given. In other cases some suitable relationship between the self-interaction potential and the scalar field kinetic energy is assumed. The assumption that the scalar field energy density scales as an exact power of the scale factor has also been used for deriving solutions.

In this paper we explore a linear relationship between the Hubble expansion parameter and the time derivative of the scalar field to derive exact analytic cosmological solutions to Einstein’s gravity with two fluids: a barotropic perfect fluid of ordinary matter, together with a self-interacting scalar field fluid accounting for the dark energy in the universe. A similar (but more general) relationship $`\dot{\varphi }H`$ has been used in Ref.  to find general solutions in $`N+1`$-dimensional theories of gravity with a self-interacting scalar field and also to derive general solutions when we have a self-interacting scalar field with exponential potential plus a free scalar field.111A method where a linear relationship between the field variables and/or their derivatives is assumed has been also used in  to derive 4d Poincare invariant solutions in thick brane contexts. The assumed relationship between the Hubble parameter and the time derivative of the scalar field is suggested by an implicit symmetry of the field equations. We will be concerned with flat Friedmann-Robertson-Walker (FRW) cosmologies with the line element given by:

$$ds^2=dt^2+a(t)^2\delta _{ik}dx^idx^k,$$
(1)
where the indexes $`i,k=1,2,3`$ and $`a(t)`$ is the scale factor.

We point out that it is not neccessary to make any a priori assumptions about the functional form of the self-interaction potential or about the scale factor behavior. These are obtained as outputs of the assumed linear relationship between the Hubble expansion parameter and the time derivative of the scalar field, once one integrates the field equations explicitely. As a consequence only a class of exponential potentials and their combinations can be treated. However, this is not a serious drawback of the method since, as pointed out above, exponential potentials are of prime importance in dark energy contexts accounted for by a quintessence field. The relevance of the solutions found for the description of the cosmic evolution will be discussed in some detail. We use the system of units in which $`8\pi G=c=1`$.

The field equations are:

$$3H^2=\rho _m+\frac{1}{2}\dot{\varphi }^2+V,$$
(2)
$$2\dot{H}+3H^2=(1\gamma )\rho _m\frac{1}{2}\dot{\varphi }^2+V,$$
(3)
$$\ddot{\varphi }+3H\dot{\varphi }=V^{},$$
(4)
where $`\gamma `$ is the barotropic index of the fluid of ordinary matter and $`H=\frac{\dot{a}}{a}`$ is the Hubble expansion parameter. The dot accounts for derivative in respect to the cosmic time $`t`$ meanwhile the comma denotes derivative in respect to the scalar field $`\varphi `$. The energy density of the ordinary matter (cold dark matter plus baryons and/or radiation) is related with the scale factor through $`\rho _m=\rho _{0,\gamma }a^{3\gamma }`$, where $`\rho _{0,\gamma }`$ is an integration constant coming from integrating the conservation equation. Let us combine equations (2) and (3) to obtain

$$\dot{H}+3H^2=\frac{2\gamma }{2}\rho _m+2V.$$
(5)
An implicit symmetry of the left hand side (LHS) of equations (4) and (5)is evident under the change $`Hk\dot{\varphi }`$. I. e., if one assumes a linear relationship between the Hubble expansion parameter and the time derivative of the scalar field;

$$H=k\dot{\varphi },a=e^{k\varphi },$$
(6)
where $`k`$ is a constant parameter, the LHS of equations (4) and (5) coincide up to the factor $`k`$. We obtain a differential equation for determining the functional form of the potential $`V`$:

$$V^{}+\frac{1}{k}V=\frac{\gamma 2}{2k}\rho _{0,\gamma }e^{3k\gamma \varphi }.$$
(7)
Explicit integration yields the following potential which is a combination of exponentials: $`V=\xi _0e^{\frac{1}{k}\varphi }+\frac{2\gamma }{6k^2\gamma 2}\rho _{0,\gamma }e^{3k\gamma \varphi }`$, where $`\xi _0`$ is an integration constant. This potential can be given in terms of the scale factor if one considers equation (6):

$$V=\xi _0a^{\frac{1}{k^2}}+\frac{2\gamma }{6k^2\gamma 2}\rho _{0,\gamma }a^{3\gamma }.$$
(8)
An interesting feature of this potential is that it depends on the type of ordinary fluid which fills the universe. Otherwise, it depends on the barotropic index $`\gamma `$ of the matter fluid. This fact implies some kind of interaction between the ordinary matter and the quintessence field much like the interacting quintessence studied in Ref.. This potential supports both an early inflation stage and a late time accelerated expansion through a stage of decelerated expansion. By substituting (8) back into Eq. (2), we can rewrite this last equation in the following form: $`(\dot{a}/a)^2=\frac{2k^2\gamma }{6k^22}\rho _{0,\gamma }a^{3\gamma }+\frac{2k^2\xi _0}{6k^21}a^{1/k^2}`$, or, if one introduces the following time variable $`dt=a^{1/2k^2}d\tau `$,

$$(\dot{a}/a)^2=\frac{2k^2\gamma }{6k^22}\rho _{0,\gamma }a^{3\gamma +1/k^2}+\frac{2k^2\xi _0}{6k^21},$$
(9)
where now the dot means derivative in respect to the new time variable $`\tau `$. This equation can be written in an integral form: $`\frac{a^1da}{\sqrt{Aa^{1/k^23\gamma }+B}}=\tau +\tau _0`$, or equivalently:

$$\frac{a^{3\gamma /21/2k^21}da}{\sqrt{A+Ba^{3\gamma +1/k^2}}}=\tau +\tau _0,$$
(10)
where $`A=\frac{2k^2\gamma }{6k^2\gamma 2}\rho _{0,\gamma }`$, $`B=\frac{2k^2\xi _0}{6k^21}`$, and $`\tau _0`$ is an integration constant. The integral in the LHS of Eq. (10) can be explicitely taken to yield the following expression for the scale factor as function of the time varaible $`\tau `$;

$$a(\tau )=a_0\{\mathrm{sinh}[\mu (\tau +\tau _0)]\}^{2k^2/(3k^2\gamma 1)},$$
(11)
where $`a_0=[\frac{6k^21}{3k^2\gamma 1}(\frac{\gamma \rho _{0,\gamma }}{2\xi _0})]^{k^2/(3k^2\gamma 1)}`$ and $`\mu =\sqrt{\frac{(3k^2\gamma 1)^2}{6k^21}\frac{\xi _0}{2k^2}}`$. The Hubble expansion parameter can then be easily computed:

$$H^2(\tau )=\frac{2k^2}{6k^21}\xi _0a(\tau )^{1/k^2}\mathrm{coth}^2[\mu (\tau +\tau _0)].$$
(12)
For the purpose of observational testing of the solutions it is useful to look for another magnitudes of astrophysical interest. Among them, the scalar field energy density:

$$\rho _\varphi =\frac{1}{2}\dot{\varphi }^2+V=3H^2\rho _m,$$
(13)
the scalar field state parameter:

$$\omega _\varphi =\frac{\frac{1}{2}\dot{\varphi }^2V}{\frac{1}{2}\dot{\varphi }^2+V}=1+\frac{1}{3k^2(1\mathrm{\Omega }_m)},$$
(14)
where $`\mathrm{\Omega }_m=\rho _m/3H^2`$ is the density parameter for ordinary matter that is related with the scalar field density paremeter $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\varphi `$ through (just another writing for the field equation (2)),

$$\mathrm{\Omega }_\varphi =\frac{\rho _\varphi }{3H^2}=1\mathrm{\Omega }_m,$$
(15)
and last but not the less, the deceleration parameter $`q=(1+\dot{H}/H^2)`$:

$$q=1+\frac{1}{2k^2}+\frac{3\gamma }{2}\mathrm{\Omega }_m.$$
(16)
While deriving equations (13)-(16) we have used the field equations (2), (3), (4) and their combinations. Assuming the linear relationship (6) between the Hubble parameter and the time derivative of the scalar field means that we are introducing a new free parameter, however, this parameter $`k`$ can be assumed to be a known function of the other free parameters of the theory ($`\tau _0`$ and $`\xi _0`$) or of the barotropic index, etc. Another possibility, perhaps the most promising, is to choose a value for $`k`$ according to the best fitting of the model to the observations.

We now investigate the full space of solutions in $`k`$ parameter without assuming apriori a definite form for it as function of the other parameters $`\tau _0`$ and $`\xi _0`$.

A) $`k^2<0\overline{k}^2=k^2>0`$

This case implies a negative kinetic energy for the scalar field since, due to (6), $`\dot{\varphi }^2=H^2/\overline{k}^2`$. A kinetic energy term with the wrong sign has been advocated in Ref.  to produce superaccelerated expansion. In this case the state parameter $`\omega _\varphi =\frac{2V+H^2/\overline{k}^2}{2VH^2/\overline{k}^2}<1`$. I. e., in spite of contrary claims  superaccelerated expansion and, correspondingly, superquintessence can be obtained within the frame of normal quintessence models like this. As it will be seen later on, from the observational point of view, for large $`\overline{k}^2`$ (small negative kinetic energy contribution), superquintessence is undistinguishable from the case with usual accelerated expansion. We want to remark that, although the scalar field kinetic energy is negative, its energy density $`\rho _\varphi `$ could be positive if $`2V>H^2/\overline{k}^2`$. Violation of the known energy conditions is obvious since $`\omega _\varphi =p_\varphi /\rho _\varphi <1p_\varphi +\rho _\varphi <0`$ .

In terms of the positive parameter $`\overline{k}^2`$, the potential (8) takes the following form:

$$V=\xi _0a^{1/\overline{k}^2}\frac{2\gamma }{2(3\overline{k}^2\gamma +1)}\rho _{0,\gamma }a^{3\gamma }.$$
(17)
The scale factor behavior can now be rewritten in the following form:

$$a(\tau )=\overline{a}_0\{\mathrm{sinh}[\overline{\mu }(\tau +\tau _0)]\}^{2\overline{k}^2/(3\overline{k}^2\gamma +1)},$$
(18)
where $`\overline{a}_0=[\frac{6\overline{k}^2+1}{3\overline{k}^2\gamma +1}(\frac{\gamma \rho _{0,\gamma }}{2\xi _0})]^{\overline{k}^2/(3\overline{k}^2\gamma +1)}`$ and $`\overline{\mu }=\sqrt{\frac{(3\overline{k}^2\gamma +1)^2}{6\overline{k}^2+1}\frac{\xi _0}{2\overline{k}^2}}`$. For the Hubble expansion parameter one has: $`H^2(\tau )=\frac{2\overline{k}^2}{6\overline{k}^2+1}\xi _0a(\tau )^{1/\overline{k}^2}\mathrm{coth}^2[\overline{\mu }(\tau +\tau _0)]`$, meanwhile for the other magnitudes of observational interest:

$$\mathrm{\Omega }_m=\frac{3\overline{k}^2\gamma +1}{3\overline{k}^2\gamma }\{\mathrm{cosh}[\overline{\mu }(\tau +\tau _0)]\}^2.$$
(19)
For the state parameter (equation of state) and the deceleration parameter we have;

$$\omega _\varphi =1\frac{1}{3\overline{k}^2(1\mathrm{\Omega }_m)},q=(1+\frac{1}{2\overline{k}^2})+\frac{3\gamma }{2}\mathrm{\Omega }_m,$$
(20)
respectively. From this last pair of equations one sees that, for any finite $`\overline{k}^2>0`$, the state parameter $`\omega _\varphi `$ is more negative than $`1`$, a phenomenon known as superquintessence (see Ref.  and references therein). Besides, an additional non vanishing negative contribution to the deceleration parameter is evident (compare the second equation in (20) with (16)), i. e., superacceleration is obtained.

We shall notice that some undesirable properties of phantom energy are not present or are smoothed out in this case. For instance neither the scale factor of the universe nor the Hubble expansion parameter diverge in a finite (or infinite) amount of cosmic time (pointing into the future). Despite of the fact that, in general, the density of phantom energy $`\rho _\varphi =\frac{3\overline{k}^2\gamma \rho _{0,\gamma }\overline{a}_0^{3\gamma }}{3\overline{k}^2\gamma +1}(\mathrm{sinh}^2[\overline{\mu }(\tau +\tau _0)]\frac{1}{3\overline{k}^2\gamma })/(\mathrm{sinh}[\overline{\mu }(\tau +\tau _0)])^{6\overline{k}^2\gamma /(3\overline{k}^2\gamma +1)}`$ slowly grows as the universe expands (for large $`\overline{k}^2>>1`$, $`\rho _\varphi \xi _0`$), we need an infinite amount of cosmic time to reach an infinite density state.

B) $`k^2>0`$

We should differentiate two ranges. For $`0<k^2<1/3\gamma `$ the scale factor evolves periodically:

$$a(\tau )=\stackrel{~}{a}_0\{\mathrm{sin}[\stackrel{~}{\omega }(\tau +\tau _0)]\}^{2k^2/(3k^2\gamma 1)},$$
(21)
where $`\stackrel{~}{a}_0=[\frac{16k^2}{(3k^2\gamma 1)}(\frac{\gamma \rho _{0,\gamma }}{2\xi _0})]^{2k^2/(3k^2\gamma 1)}`$. However, in this case, for $`0\gamma 2`$, $`3k^2\gamma 1<0`$ so one should have $`\xi _0<0`$. This means that the self-interaction potential itself is negative, i. e., the scalar field energy density is negative. Besides $`q>0`$ always and this case is not of observational interest.

For $`k^2>1/3\gamma `$ the equations (11), (12) are valid and the quantities of observational interest read;

$`\mathrm{\Omega }_m={\displaystyle \frac{3k^2\gamma 1}{3k^2\gamma }}\{\mathrm{cosh}[\mu (\tau +\tau _0)]\}^2,`$
$`\omega _\varphi =1+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{3k^2(1\mathrm{\Omega }_m)}},q=1+1/2k^2+{\displaystyle \frac{3\gamma }{2}}\mathrm{\Omega }_m.`$ (22)
Now we proceed to observationally test the solution found. We first compute the parameters $`\tau _0`$, $`\xi _0`$, and $`k`$ by the best fit to the observational evidence. These parameters can be fixed once one tries to fit the model with the experimental observations of SN1a (we include the known bounds on $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{0,m}`$, $`q_0`$, etc.), including the recent observation of SN1997ff at redshift $`z=1.7`$. We are left with a set in parameter space $`(\tau _0,\xi _0,k)`$ of admissible values fulfilling with the observational bounds. From this set we choose a trio and then we compute the magnitudes of observational interest (equations (13)-(16)). While doing the computations we used the condition $`\rho _{0,m}=n\xi _0`$. For illustration, in all figures in this paper, we chose the trio ($`n=0.5`$, $`k=10000`$, $`\xi _0=3`$) that agrees with the known bounds on $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{0,m}`$, $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{0,\varphi }`$, $`q_0`$, etc, and also we considered dust matter ($`\gamma =1`$). For the case $`k^2<0(\overline{k}^2>0)`$ the present values of the state parameter and matter density parameter are $`\omega _\varphi =1.00005`$ and $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\varphi =0.333341`$ respectively, meanwhile, for $`k^2>0`$, the present values of these parameters are $`\omega _\varphi =0.99995`$ and $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\varphi =0.333326`$.

From fig.1, where the evolution of both $`\mathrm{\Omega }_m`$ and $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\varphi `$ $`\&`$ redshift $`z`$ is shown, we see that the quintessence field $`\varphi `$ was subdominant in the past as required by nucleosynthesis constraints, is comparable to the matter density parameter at present $`\tau =0(z=0)`$ (according to present observations $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{0,m}0.3`$ and $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{0,\varphi }0.7`$) and will be dominant in the future.

The dependence of the deceleration parameter on redshif is shown in fig.2 for $`k^2<0(\overline{k}^2>0)`$ and $`k^2>0(>1/3\gamma )`$. The transition from decelerated expansion into accelerated expansion occurs approximately at $`z0.6`$ in both cases, in agreement with claims that the transition should be at $`z0.5`$ and with recent observation of the SN1997ff at redshift $`z=1.7`$, confirming a decelerated phase when the universe was a few seconds old. In fig.3 we show the distance modulus $`\delta (z)`$ as function of redshift both, computed according to the model (solid line for $`k^2<0`$ and dashed line for $`k^2>1/3\gamma `$) and the experimental curve (dots). Relative deviations are of about 0.7$`\%`$. It is noticeable that both superquintessence and quintessence are undistinguisheable from the observational point of view, and for the values of the parameters considered here.

The linear relationship explored in this paper allows, also, deriving solutions in Brans-Dicke and non-minimally coupled theories in general and this will be the subject of forthcoming papers.

Summing up. We have derived exact analytic solutions to gravity theory minimally coupled to a self-interacting scalar field by assuming a linear relationship between the Hubble expansion parameter and the time derivative of the scalar field. This relationship is suggested by an implicit symmetry of the field equations. It induces a restriction upon the type of potentials one can deal with: a combination of exponentials that depends on the barotropic index of the matter fluid. We have derived exact analytic solutions and the entire range in $`k`$ parameter has been explored. It has been shown that, contrary to common belief, for $`k^2<0`$ superquintessence behavior is accomodated within this ”normal” quintessence model. The solutions found have been observationally tested by using the distance modulus test (SN1a observations where we included the known bounds on $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{0,m}`$, $`q_0`$, etc.) and the SN1997ff observation at $`z=1.7`$. The main features of present observational cosmology are satisfied within admissible accuracy levels for both $`k^2<0`$ and $`k^2>1/3\gamma `$, leaving a margin for superquintessence to effectively take place.

We thank John D. Barrow and Luis P. Chimento for pointing out to us references  and  respectively. We acknowledge the MES of Cuba by financial support of this research.


text:
# Implications of the Sample Rate on Large Space Telescopes

## 1 Introduction

The frequency at which each of a large space telescope’s detector chips is read, or the sample rate, is tightly coupled to many aspects of the hardware aboard the spacecraft. The sample rate is an operational parameter: it is selected as an element of observing strategy and can be easily changed. However, optimum hardware design depends in many ways on the sample rate. Choosing the sample rate is therefore a critical process, and needs to be done early to permit hardware design to be stabilized and avoid schedule slips. In this paper we analyze many of the hardware and operational implications and drivers of the sample rate. We assume the detector can be read out non-destructively. Destructive readouts are more properly addressed in integration time studies.

The sample rate directly drives the data rate to the ground. This is obvious if there is no onboard processing, but still true even if there is data compression. The sample rate also drives several onboard computer capability requirements, including CPU speed, bus bandwidth, and data storage size. The sample rate directly affects the number and performance requirements of the A$``$D chips, which in turn is a major driver of the size, weight, complexity and cost of the analog electronics. With the transmission line format and protocol, the sample rate determines the number of signal lines required between the warm electronics and the cold detectors, which in turn impacts the temperature and dark current of the detectors; in the case of instruments observing in the mid-IR (as on NGST), this can be a major design consideration. In addition, the sample rate drives the read noise requirements and the final noise limits of the entire telescope, the detector power dissipation and dark current, and, finally, determines the brightest objects that can be observed. Clearly, the sample rate must be chosen carefully, since many of the above quantities will have major impacts on the observatory’s cost and overall performance.

In this paper we present a parameterization based on sample rate, to estimate and optimize observational efficiency for large space telescopes. Our initial approach is for a generalized instrument, with applications to NGST demonstrated in later sections. We assume a telescope with area $`A`$, telescope efficiency $`ϵ`$, detector efficiency $`\eta `$, and an integration time $`\tau `$. We will assume a large number of pixels $`N`$, and a sample rate, $`R`$ and calculate operational limits based on these parameters. We assume that the point-spread-function will distribute the photons across a few pixels but a large fraction $`f`$ of them will fall on a single pixel which has a full well depth of $`w`$.

For our discussion we have adopted the nominal ”first-baseline” values for NGST of $`A=30`$ m2, $`ϵ=0.7`$, $`\eta =0.8`$, $`R=0.1`$ Hz $`N=8\times 10^7`$ and $`\tau =1000`$ s. For many of the estimations we assume a J band filter. For a J band magnitude $`B_J24`$ source the flux is 1 photon/m2/sec, however, most of the results are simular for other bands. For many calculations it is convenient to define an effective area $`a=Aϵ\eta f(8`$ m2 for NGST).

The cost of the electronics, A$``$D system, and backplane are all driven by the maximum read rate. Once the cost of this rate is borne, it is almost always an advantage to use the maximum rate. Even if it means discarding the data it simplifies the clocking and maintains a uniform loading on the detectors to take data at a constant rate. Therefore, in the remainder of the paper we will assume that the detectors are continuously read out at the maximum rate that the facility will support.

We have organized our discussion as follows. In sections 2 and 3 we discuss program and design elements that, to first order “prefer” faster (§2: Primary Drivers for Faster Readout) and slower (§3: Primary Drivers for Slower Readout) sample rates. Because several of these elements have other, more complicated effects, in §4 (Secondary Drivers and Complications) we discuss both second-order effects and less dominant design elements affecting the sample rate, and their implications. In §5 we discuss optimum sample rates for various conditions. Our conclusions are in §5.4.

## 2 Primary Drivers for a Faster Readout

Several design considerations drive the sample rate higher. Faster sampling leads to more reads (for the same integration) which can lower the final noise. Faster sampling allows observing brighter objects (which could also be accomplished with a fast shutter). Faster sampling also allows better cosmic ray rejection, but this is only if the data are processed to eliminate only affected samples. And for some systems faster sampling is a way of dealing with low frequency noise in the electronics.

### 2.1 Low Frequency Noise

In the discussions here we have assumed that the noise is white; that is, it does not vary as a function of frequency. Unfortunately, the noise characteristics of the electronics and/or detector frequently exhibit substantially higher noise at low frequency. This is often dubbed $`1/f`$ noise even when it only approximates $`1/f`$ to some power. This sort of noise can sometimes be traced to the temperature stability of the electronics, or the power stability. Often the source of the instability is totally unknown or only poorly understood. Typically, below 1 Hz (plus or minus an order of magnitude) this $`1/f`$ noise is the dominate noise source.

There are several ways of dealing with this sort of noise. The most straightforward, running faster, unfortunately is inconsistent with the required integration times of deep astronomical observations. In this context, one solution is to ground the input to the first stage amplifier and take a “noise” reading between each pair of normal reads. The result can be subtracted from the following (or preceeding) normal read. This corrects for offset drifts in the entire chain of electronics including the A$``$D, but at the cost of doubling the read rate and increasing the random read noise by a factor of $`\sqrt{2}`$.

The same idea can be applied by adding a “zero” read every $`n`$ normal reads and smoothing the “zero” reads. A natural system is to add extra nondetector pixels at the beginning or end of each row of the detector. An advantage of this system is that it requires no extra circuitry and the “zero” pixels are read out exactly as the normal pixels are. One way to do this is to cover a one or more of the edge pixels with an opaque layer (e.g. aluminum) so no light gets in but in other respects the pixels acts as a “normal” pixel. Since the row rate is of order 100 Hz usually one can average several rows to obtain a baseline to subtract from the other reads to reduce the additional noise to an acceptable level.

Over much of the signal band $`1`$ Hz to $`100`$ kHz systems have been built with relatively flat noise spectra. NGST’s sheer number of pixels ($`10^8`$) means that nearly the full bandwidth of the wires between the cold detector and the warm electronics will need to be utilized. Further the long integration times ($`10^4`$) s will require effective treatment of the low frequency noise. In the rest of the paper we will assume that the remaining noise is white. However, a full discussion of the low frequency noise is beyond the scope of this paper.

### 2.2 Lower Noise

At high read rates, the read noise can be averaged over many reads. If the RMS noise in each detector read is $`\sigma `$ (in photons or electrons) then the smallest signal that can be measured in an integration is:

$$B_{min}=B_J+2.5\mathrm{log}(\frac{a\tau }{\sigma })+1.25\mathrm{log}(R\tau )$$
(1)
(for $`2R\tau <27\sigma ^2`$) if optimum Fowler sampling is used. Up-the-ramp processing improves this result by .06 magnitudes but the scaling remains the same. Unfortunately the output noise of the detectors is often uncertain until after the detectors have been tested and their performance optimized. The output noise for a single read for NGST is uncertain as the detectors are not yet built. Numbers of 10 to 30 e- (Fanson et al. 1998) are possible. We will use $`30`$ e- because detectors with this noise level have been demonstrated for WFC3 (E.S. Cheng, private comunication). However, we will retain this number as a parameter $`\sigma `$ so it is easy to adjust the results if lower noise detectors are produced.

### 2.3 Bright Objects

The brighter the object, the faster the detector wells are filled, so that the flux of the brightest object that can be observed is directly proportional to the rate at which the detector is read out. As the magnitude scale is logarithmic, the bright magnitude limit is

$$B_{max}=B_J2.5\mathrm{log}(Rw/a)$$
(2)
(although, of course, filters with a narrower passband or lower efficiency will allow brighter objects). Objects this bright will fill a well in a single read time, so the noise will be dominated by the photon statistics or about $`1/\sqrt{w}`$, (0.4% of the signal for $`w=70000`$). Other uncertainties (gain uncertainty, calibration stability, filter unknowns, etc) will also contribute, but, for bright objects a few integrations at this level will measure the object to the telescope’s ultimate limits of precision. Presumably there will be other objects of interest in the field of view, so the observation need not stop after a few reads, but the remaining reads will be wasted for this bright object.

With minor modification the detector can observe much brighter objects (§4.4), but whatever rate and architecture is chosen, the brightest object will still be limited by the read rate. A fast shutter would allow very bright objects but has its own power, weight and budget costs. Since the magnitude scale is logarithmic, the brightest object for NGST will be within a few magnitudes of 20.

### 2.4 Cosmic Rays

If the data is deglitched either on-board with up-the-ramp processing (Fixsen et al. 2000) or on the ground, the cosmic ray data loss can be limited to one or two samples after the cosmic ray event (Offenberg et al. 2000). Therefore, higher sample rates result in lower information loss.

With continuous integrations, for low-signal cases the loss of a single integration is much more important than the loss of a single readout. The loss of continuous integration on average loses about 1/2 of the information, which is large compared to the loss of 2 to 10% of the data for the single readout loss.

## 3 Primary Drivers for a Slower Readout

Other design considerations drive the sample rate lower. Most of these involve cost mitigation, in the cryocables, analog electronics, onboard computer (memory and CPU cycles), and transmitter.

### 3.1 Detector Noise and Power

The noise and power of a detector are closely coupled. High power line drivers generate extra electrons which eventually are seen in the wells as dark current. Read-process-generated noise is seen in the NICMOS detectors and is one of the limits on the NICMOS readout rate. One way to mitigate this is to use a separate driver, but this requires an extra chip and power at the cold focus, where space and power are at a premium. In future detectors the read noise will be lower and NGST read rates will be lower, but the dark current limits will be lower as well. This is an important relationship that warrants understanding as early as possible; it may drive a limit on the sampling rate, or it may not be a relevant driver at all.

### 3.2 Cryocables

The bandwidth of the cables from the detector to the analog electronics is limited. Although the details are important (§4.6) in general the number of wires required is:

$$N_W20NR/\nu $$
(3)
For a “standard” voltage source follower design $`\nu =100`$ kHz, but this depends on the style of analog electronics and the length of the cable. The number of wires may also be forced higher because of noise considerations.

The number of wires is important for several reasons. The thermal loading on the detectors increases as the number of wires increases. The cost increases, because cryocables are expensive wires in many ways. Thermal and electrical considerations make installation slow and laborious, since thermal and mechanical tie points are required on any cable. Furthermore the connectors and points to hold them where they can radiate without interfering with other components become increasingly complicated with more wires. Finally, the low thermal conductance which is necessary requires the use of thin manganin wires, which are fragile and difficult to solder. This makes wire failure a significant probability, increasing with the number of wires.

### 3.3 Analog Electronics

To a large extent, the size, weight, power and cost of the analog electronics is a direct function of the number of separate readout ports, which is then tied to the speed at which a single A$``$D can reliably digitize $`D`$.

$$N_{AD}=NR/D$$
(4)
For a practical state-of-the-art 16 bit A$``$D, $`D300`$ kHz. But, the number of A$``$D’s required is also a function of the A$``$D and redundancy considerations. Each A$``$D requires attendant op amps, filters, sample-and-hold, digital drivers, and power supply equipment.

### 3.4 On Board Memory

After the data is digitized, it must be stored. We assume, as a baseline, that the data will be immediately processed in order to to compress it without loss by a factor of 2. Lossy compression can reduce it by another factor of 2. Fowler processing can compress it an additional factor of 8 to 32. Up-the-Ramp processing can compress it a total of $`64`$, but requires $`10`$ GB of temporary storage (RAM). The cost of memory has been in rapid decline for many years but GB of RAM on board a spacecraft is still expensive in terms of the physical size, weight, and power in addition to the dollar cost of the RAM chips.

The baseline short term storage requirement is:

$$M_S=4NR\tau \mathrm{Byte}$$
(5)
which is 2 bytes per sample, and two buffers. The long term (daily) storage requirement is:

$$M_L=\frac{.17NR}{K}\mathrm{MByte}$$
(6)
where $`K`$ is the compression ratio (§4.9). This volume of data is also the volume of data that must be down-linked to the ground. This has its own costs both on the spacecraft and on the ground. Of course, compression, $`K`$, can vary between 1 and $`250`$.

### 3.5 Computer Cycles

The data must be handled by the onboard computer. The number of operations, $`P`$, per sample varies from $`6`$ (to just shuffle the data in and out), to $`45`$ (to do full up-the-ramp processing with cosmic ray rejection). With substantial compression the post-compression processing has a small impact because the quantity of data is much smaller. The required processing speed is:

$$f_{CPU}=PNR\mathrm{Flops}$$
(7)
A single 250 MFlop machine can handle the load for NGST and a modest $`R`$. However, the onboard machine may have other duties, such as, controlling the observatory or adjusting the optics, and more than one processor may be desired for redundancy.

## 4 Secondary Drivers and Complications

There are many secondary issues: calibration data formats, processing styles, cable length, down-link stations etc.; that also affect these numbers. Here we provide some explanations of how these parameters affect the above calculations.

### 4.1 Calibration

The calibration of an instrument is often as difficult as the rest of the observation and data reduction. For a large space telescope the problem is compounded by the fact that the objects convenient to view are dimmer than standard calibration objects.

One solution is to use a dark neutral filter. In principle this can reduce a bright well known calibration object to a comfortable viewing brightness even for a large space telescope. Advantages include: the time scale, absolute brightness, and readout process are identical with the normal data processes. This allows “apples to apples” comparisons. There are disadvantages as well: dark neutral filters with the required density are not easy to obtain or verify. Also light scattering around the dark filter can be a problem. Finally the advantage of a short calibration observation is lost.

A second method is to use very short exposures. This has the advantage of changing only the time (a well understood parameter) leaving the other filters and mirrors exactly as in the normal observations. The disadvantage is that the dynamic range required to compare a bright calibration object with a “typical” field object is hard to build into the telescope. Also the short exposures may have different detector artifacts than the longer normal exposures.

Finally one can use a different readout scheme (e.g. readout a 10$`\times `$10 block rather than the full chip). This enables a very high dynamic range and also allows detailed observations of bright objects. But the possibilities of artifacts due to the readout scheme are magnified.

Often a combination of the schemes is used, along with the development of a series of secondary calibration sources.

### 4.2 Chip Count

After the total number of pixels is selected, there remains a question of how many detector chips should be used. In the past the limitation was on the size of chip that could be manufactured. But with large arrays of chips (for NGST) there is a tradeoff between 64 1K$`\times `$1K chips and 16 2K$`\times `$2K chips. Larger chips allow easier mounting, potentially fewer outputs, fewer gaps in the image area, and easier temperature measurement and control. On the other hand more chips allow more defects in a wafer, and lead to smaller losses in the event of a failure.

### 4.3 Integration Time

The integration time is a hidden variable in many calculations. For high level signals, the noise is dominated by the noise inherent in the photons themselves. In this case, the value (statistical weight) of an integration is proportional to the integration time. So the integration time is not important; the sum of several short integrations has the same value as if the time were spent on a single integration.

For low level signals, the situation is different. The noise is dominated by the readout noise in the detector or other parts of the system. Long integration times allow the signal to peek above the noise. Thus the value of an integration is proportional to the square of the integration time. Furthermore, longer integration times allow more reads and so effectively decrease the noise. This is true no matter what processing is chosen. The additional number of reads makes the full value of the integration proportional to the cube of the integration time. Hence, one 1000–second integration has the same statistical value as eight 500–second integrations when the signal is so small that the read noise dominates the uncertainty of the measurement.

Four effects limit the integration time.

1)Telescope drifts and instabilities make it desirable to keep the integration times short compared to events in the observatory. For Hubble, the heating and cooling cycle of the 80-minute orbit in some ways limits integrations to $`20`$ minutes. For ground observatories similar effects limit observations to a few hours. For NGST, similar limitations will arise in a few months. It is important to make sure that proposed integration times are not based on hidden assumptions of orbits or day/night cycles.

2)As an integration proceeds, the signal from the dark current and the zodiacal foreground accumulates until it emerges from the readout noise. From then on further integration adds only linearly to the weight, so there is no advantage to a longer integration time.

3)Eventually the wells fill up, and the detector can no longer collect electrons. This can happen in a part of the detector which is looking at a bright source (e.g. a galactic core) while another part of the detector is collecting only a few photons (e.g. in the fringes of the same galaxy), so the integration time is a balance between the optimum times for the bright regions and the faint regions.

4)Cosmic rays strike the detector and destroy information there. The amount of damage depends on the type of processing done to the data. Some processes (Fowler sampling) lose all of the information in a pixel when a cosmic ray strikes. In this case one must find a balance between losing the information already collected and improving that information. A good analogy for this situation is “a bird in the hand is worth two in the bush”. Other processes (including up-the-ramp) save the information collected before the cosmic ray strike. For these processes, the integration time can be extended to the point where most of the pixels have been affected by cosmic rays. After that, the effective integration time is set by the interval between incoming cosmic rays. In this case one can chase the birds in the bush while retaining a firm grasp on the bird already in hand.

### 4.4 Readout Options

The more complex the readout options, the more expensive (in terms of size, power and money) the analog electronics become. The simplest approach is to have a single fixed read rate that continuously reads through the detectors. This has the huge advantage of allowing all of the detector clocks to be synchronized, limiting their interference with each other. A second significant advantage is that A$``$D chips and related hardware are used much more efficiently. However, a good science readout rate is not sufficient to handle guiding (10 to 100 Hz is required).

One can handle guiding by incorporating a minor change into the detector chip. If the readout pixel is allowed to count in either rows or columns and proceed in either direction, the identical read rate can be used for all detectors at all times. On the guide chip, instead of reading out the entire chip, the readout is done several times over a region around the guide star. For instance with a read rate of 1 rpm (.0167 Hz) on a 2K$`\times `$2K chip (70 kHz) a 10$`\times `$10 region can be read out at 700 Hz. Even if each read cycle starts at one corner, (0,0), the region still can be read out at 33 Hz in the worst position (guide star on the minor diagonal) and at 50 Hz mean rate for random positions.

Furthermore, as long as this mode is required, one can make a virtue of necessity and allow the mode to be used on any bright star. A bright star can be read out immediately after resetting the detector. In principle this allows objects 4$`\times 10^6`$ times (or 16 magnitudes) brighter to be observed, which would permit NGST to observe of 4th magnitude objects. Practically one would want a 10$`\times `$10 region around the star to get the full PSF, but this would still allow up to 9th magnitude stars to be observed by NGST. (Note Jupiter is spread out over $`8`$ M pixels, so it effectively acts as a constellation of 13th magnitude stars).

### 4.5 Cosmic Rays

Cosmic ray environments depend primarily on the spacecraft’s orbit although shielding can help. For example, the cosmic ray environment at L2 is different from that in low earth orbit; the shielding from the Earth’s magnetic field and atmosphere are gone. But so are the concentrating effects of the Earth’s magnetic field. The best estimates are that NSGT will experience about 1 cosmic ray per pixel every 3 hours (Barth & Issacs 1999). So for even modest integration times (e.g. 1000 sec), a significant fraction of the pixels will be affected (10%).

### 4.6 Cryocable Concerns

One of the major undetermined parameters is how many pixels to read out per output. There might be several outputs per chip or only one output per chip. The chip might be 1K$`\times `$1K or 2K$`\times `$2K (or some other size). But, the key parameter is the readout area per output. If 1 Mpix is readout per output line, 160 wires are required to readout the 80 Mpix for NGST. In addition, each readout area needs a couple of bias settings, a clock, up/down control, row/column control, reset, a thermometer, and a chip reset, resulting in about 20 wires needed for each output. Concern for failures due to broken wires may double this number. Thus, 80 outputs could result in up to 3200 wires. Using 2K$`\times `$2K blocks and not doubling them reduces this to 400 wires. Using common grounds (for the DC biases) and sharing the clocks and resets (within a camera) can reduce this to about 200 wires. A reduced wire count results in a lower thermal load, which allows the use of larger more robust wires less likely to break.

With 640 wires per camera ($`N_{cam}=4\times 10^6`$, with a 1K$`\times `$1K blocks), multiple connectors are required, which increases the danger of misconnected cables and the time needed to verify that the cables are in fact working. However, with a 2K$`\times `$2K block, a single 40 pin connector (or a pair of 25 pin MDM connectors) per camera is an option.

There are advantages to fewer wires, but there are limitations. The readout speed is limited in a transmission line. So the number of lines required is directly proportional to the read rate. It is convenient to have a single readout per detector chip, but this not essential. A single chip can have multiple output ports. Conversely, with an inhibit line, several chips could share the same output transmission line. On the warm side, multiplexing A$``$D’s to a single line or vice versa is straightforward. But debugging, noise and cross talk issues are simplified by an arrangement of one chip to one line to one A$``$D.

In many tests with the readout electronics close to the detector, it has been convenient, given the inherent limitations of the detector output, to use the detector output stage as a voltage follower and the readout electronics to look at the voltage of the output. Such a system is penalized by the $`RC`$ time constant of the cable. In this case, the $`R`$ is dominated by the output impedance of the detector, and the $`C`$ is dominated by the capacitance of the cable. About 10 time constants are needed to limit cross talk between the pixels to a single bit for a 16 bit system. However, the speed can be doubled by allowing some cross talk but repairing it with post digitization processing. If the output is used as a current source, the speed is limited by the $`L/R`$ time constant. There are other noise sources in this configuration (current noise rather than voltage noise), but the speed is increased by about a factor of 5.

### 4.7 Memory Options

From the A$``$D, the data needs to directly enter either a processor or a memory buffer. A constant read rate allows each A$``$D to enter its data into a dual port memory buffer while a processor uses the other port to collect and compress data from a previous read or integration. By synchronizing the A$``$D with a processor (perhaps a dedicated signal processor) the data might be Fowler processed, and/or cross talk eliminated, and the requirement of a dual ported memory relaxed. If a full integration is required to reside in the memory, about 1 GB is required for each 2K$`\times `$2K block.

After processing, the data will need to be stored again before down-link. It is much more important for the long term storage to be radiation-tolerant than to be fast, since the storage will be holding data for about a day rather than a fraction of an hour. Also errors in the raw data may be corrected in processing, while data awaiting down-link will presumably have been compressed and the data thus have a higher significance per bit. The down-link data rate depends as much on the type of processing as on the sample rate.

### 4.8 Processing Options

There are many processing options, which need not be exclusive of one another. With a general purpose computer on board, the processing can be dynamically adjusted to fit the data and the nature of the observations.

Fowler averaging, up-the-ramp processing, or kalman filtering can be used to compress the data and improve the signal-to-noise ratio. One or some combination of these may be used on most of the data.

Special purpose processing will be needed for finding the centroid of an image for guiding. Other special processing will be required for spectrometers on NGST. A complex set of calculations may be needed on board to make the mirror adjustments. Telescopes that take advantage of L2 or other distant locations to limit temperature changes will be limited in downlink data rates, which will make on board processing to reduce the data volume and/or make autonomous decisions and attractive option.

### 4.9 Compression Factor

There are several types of processing that could serve to compress and/or deglitch the data in order to reduce the memory/transmission cost and/or enhance the overall observatory performance.

1)Lossless compression is relatively cheap (in both space and CPU cycles), innocuous, and can lead to about a factor of 2 data compression. In some simulated data sets higher compression ratios have been achieved, but cosmic ray glitches expand the dynamic range of images and consequently reduce the compression ratio. Since it is cheap, lossless compression is likely to be used in conjunction with whatever other methods are used.

2)Fowler processing can have large compression ratios (8 to 32), as some or all of the reads from an integration can be combined into a single picture. It is simple and can be applied to the data as it arrives, reducing the need for short-term memory. However it does not allow cosmic ray rejection within the data that are processed.

3)Up-the-ramp processing allows even larger compression ratios (16 to 64) since the longer integration time allowed by rejecting cosmic rays can still be compressed to the same single picture format. The process takes more CPU power and more short term memory but yields higher quality data.

4)Kalman filtering is a process that like the up-the-ramp process, rejects cosmic rays, but one point at a time. In principle it shares the same advantages but requires far less memory (though more CPU cycles). However it is not as efficient at rejecting cosmic rays because it must use only past data rather than the full data set to reject the cosmic rays.

5)Lossy compression eliminates less significant bits. If properly done little real information is lost, and can result in a factor of 2 data compression (which may be combined with the factors from the other processes). Lossy compression is fast, but astronomers are a suspicious lot, loath to part with even low-significance data.

### 4.10 Misconceptions

There are some component limitations which are commonly held to be important but which we believe to be artificial, e.g.,

The data cryocables may have always been arranged in a voltage follower configuration, but there may be significant advantages to other arrangements. Also the “best” solution may use digital processing to correct for known analog defects.

The standard way to deal with cosmic rays is to integrate until some small faction (5 or 10%) of the pixels are contaminated and use several integrations to ferret out the contaminated data. However, a detailed calculation shows that longer integrations offer a potential increase in signal to noise, especially when combined with a cosmic ray rejection algorithm.

The detector designers are already doing their utmost to improve the dark current, well depth, and output noise. But this does not preclude minor and well understood adjustments in the chip fabrication process that would meaningful improvements, such as allowing forward or backward clocking, and/or row or column clocking.

## 5 Optimum Speed for NGST

### 5.1 NGST Goals

The NGST, like the HST, will be called upon to do many tasks, but it is not a cheap general-purpose observatory. Like Hubble, its forte will be observing faint sources at the edge of the observable universe. While bright stars will be observed for calibration, or for searches of their neighborhood for planets, observations of bright stars will be done much more cheaply from the many observatories that exist now or that will be built over the next 10 years. So the $`key`$ consideration in the NGST’s physical and operational design is, how a process, or a component, or a decision (about the data rate, for example) affects the observation of faint sources at NGST’s limits.

### 5.2 Noise Sources and Optimizing the Sample Rate

A key point is the integration time at which observation limits change from being readout noise limited to being sky background, dark current, or cosmic ray limited. The background noise is the Poisson noise of the incoming photons from the background light, which is largely reflected sunlight (for $`\lambda <3\mu `$m) or thermally emitted light from zodiacal dust (for $`\lambda >3\mu `$m).

$$N_z^2=Z\tau $$
(8)
Similarly dark current has its own Poisson noise:

$$N_d^2=I_d\tau $$
(9)
With $`\sigma `$ e- noise per readout, the readout noise for a set of uniformly sample data is:

$$N_r^2=12\sigma ^2/R\tau $$
(10)
### 5.3 Conclusion: What is the Optimum Sample Rate?

As the dark current and background noise $`increase`$ with time, and the readout noise $`decreases`$ with time, one needs only to wait long enough and the background or dark current will be the limiting noise. However after some mean time $`\tau `$ many pixels will be affected by a cosmic ray and the integration can no longer continue. These formulas can be combined to specify a lower limit for the read rate.

$$R>\frac{12\sigma ^2}{(I_d+Z)\tau ^2}$$
(11)
At the present time $`\sigma 30`$, and $`\tau `$ is thought to be a several thousand seconds for NGST’s orbital environment and detectors. From COBE, $`Z`$ is about .25 photon/second for the case of NGST-like pixels, and if the dark current is small relative to this, the result is $`R>.003`$ Hz, or about one readout every five minutes. This value represents a lower limit for the readout rate, as driven by known physical effects. To allow margins for unknowns, and to acquire data to determine noise, it would be prudent to run somewhat faster than this. If lower read noise can be achieved, a slower read rate is appropriate.

As outlined above, faster sampling has some advantages– the potential for observing brighter objects, lower noise under certain conditions, and more complete cosmic ray rejection. However, these advantages must be weighed against the important disadvantage of significantly more complicated electronic hardware: more and/or faster A$``$D converters, with their ancillary analog electronics; on-board memory; more cabling (and therefore thermal complication, a serious issue for near- and mid-IR observatories); and more CPU power. Meeting these requirements will significantly multiply the overall cost of potential observatories.

Space telescope projects are and will continue to be strongly limited in cost. Given this constraint it is important to treat parameter optimizations, such as finding the optimum sample rate, as fixed in total cost. The capability of a high sample rate, permitting observations of bright sources, may require too many resources. Optimization therefore should balance science requirements against each other at fixed cost, with the overall goal of maximizing the science the observatory is designed for.

Acknowledgements

We thank M. Greenhouse for helpful comments.

This work was supported by Lockheed-Martin.