text:
# 1 Introduction

## 1 Introduction

The study of open strings in the presence of background fields enables us to explain the noncommutativity on the D-brane worldvolume . In the most of these attempts the noncommutativity parameter is constant i.e., it is independent of the spacetime coordinates. It is given in terms of a constant background NS$``$NS $`B`$-field and a constant closed string metric $`g_{\mu \nu }`$ . The noncommutativity parameter also can be non-constant . One can achieve to this, by introducing a nontrivial $`B`$-field  or more general, a curved background metric $`g_{\mu \nu }`$ with nontrivial $`B`$-field .

The fact that the noncommutativity parameter is not constant implies that, indirectly this parameter depends on the coordinates of the string worldsheet. We consider the noncommutativity parameter $`\mathrm{\Theta }^{\mu \nu }`$ as a bosonic field of the string worldsheet. Worldsheet supersymmetry enables us to find a fermionic super-partner for it. We call this fermionic field $`\omega ^{\mu \nu }`$. We study supersymmetry of the $`\mathrm{\Theta }\omega `$-system. That is, we find the supersymmetry transformations of the fields $`\mathrm{\Theta }^{\mu \nu }`$ and $`\omega ^{\mu \nu }`$. We show that the algebra of these transformations is closed.

Imposing the worldsheet supersymmetry to the noncommutativity relation of the spacetime, creates star products between the boson-boson, boson-fermion and fermion-fermion fields. By these products we can find the noncommutativity of the superfields associated to the worldsheet superspace. Therefore, this noncommutativity is compatible with supersymmetry. Furthermore, we shall show that star product of two superfields is a superfield. In other words, noncommutativity parameter of the superfield coordinates is a superfield.

Some transformation properties of the components of the supersymmetrized local noncommutativity parameter will be discussed. By quantizing the system, the algebra of the supercurrent is studied. In addition to the supersymmetry, the action of the $`\mathrm{\Theta }\omega `$-system also is symmetric under the reparametrization of the worldsheet coordinates, the Weyl scaling of the worldsheet metric, the transformations that are induced by Poincaré transformations and another linear transformation of $`\mathrm{\Theta }^{\mu \nu }`$ and $`\omega ^{\mu \nu }`$. We study the two later symmetries in detail.

This paper is organized as follows. In section 2, supersymmetry of the noncommutativity parameter and its fermionic partner is discussed. In section 3, we find star products between the worldsheet bosons and fermions and also between superfields of worldsheet superspace. In section 4, the action of these new fields, the quantization of these fields, the supercurrent and its algebra will be obtained. In section 5, we study the induced Poincaré symmetry and another symmetry of this system.

## 2 Supersymmetry transformations of $`\mathrm{\Theta }^{\mu \nu }`$ and $`\omega ^{\mu \nu }`$

We know that for a noncommutative space with the coordinates $`\{X^\mu \}`$ and the noncommutativity parameter $`\mathrm{\Theta }^{\mu \nu }`$ there is

$`X^\mu X^\nu =X^\mu X^\nu +{\displaystyle \frac{i}{2}}\mathrm{\Theta }^{\mu \nu },`$ (1)
which leads to the commutator

$`[X^\mu ,X^\nu ]_{}=i\mathrm{\Theta }^{\mu \nu }.`$ (2)
Note that in string theory, the equation (1) is definition of the star product between two worldsheet bosons $`X^\mu `$ and $`X^\nu `$. It is not definition of the parameter $`\mathrm{\Theta }^{\mu \nu }`$. Later we shall find an appropriate action for $`\mathrm{\Theta }^{\mu \nu }`$.

Now consider superstring theory with worldsheet supersymmetry. It has the action

$`S={\displaystyle \frac{1}{4\pi \alpha ^{}}}{\displaystyle d^2\sigma (_aX^\mu ^aX_\mu i\overline{\psi }^\mu \rho ^a_a\psi _\mu )},`$ (3)
where $`\psi ^\mu =\left(\begin{array}{c}\psi _{}^\mu \\ \psi _+^\mu \end{array}\right)`$ is a Majorana spinor of worldsheet. The equations of motion extracted from this action are

$`_+\psi _{}^\mu =_{}\psi _+^\mu =_+_{}X^\mu =0,`$ (4)
where $`_\pm =\frac{1}{2}(_\tau \pm _\sigma )`$. Under the worldsheet supersymmetry transformations, this action is invariant. These transformations are

$`\delta X^\mu =\overline{ϵ}\psi ^\mu ,`$ (5)
$`\delta \psi ^\mu =i\rho ^a_aX^\mu ϵ,`$
where $`ϵ`$ is a constant anti-commuting infinitesimal Majorana spinor. According to the equations of motion (4), supersymmetry means that $`_\pm X^\mu `$ appears like $`\psi _\pm ^\mu `$ and vice-versa.

From the equation (1) and the supersymmetry transformations (5), we have

$`{\displaystyle \frac{i}{2}}\delta \mathrm{\Theta }^{\mu \nu }=\overline{ϵ}(\psi ^\mu X^\nu +X^\mu \psi ^\nu \psi ^\mu X^\nu X^\mu \psi ^\nu ).`$ (6)
This transformation can be written as

$`\delta \mathrm{\Theta }^{\mu \nu }=\overline{ϵ}\omega ^{\mu \nu },`$ (7)
where $`\omega ^{\mu \nu }`$ is defined as

$`{\displaystyle \frac{i}{2}}\omega ^{\mu \nu }=\psi ^\mu X^\nu +X^\mu \psi ^\nu \psi ^\mu X^\nu X^\mu \psi ^\nu ,`$ (8)
or in the commutator form, it is

$`i\omega ^{\mu \nu }=[\psi ^\mu ,X^\nu ]_{}[\psi ^\nu ,X^\mu ]_{}.`$ (9)
Also the equations (5) and (8) give the supersymmetry transformation of $`\omega ^{\mu \nu }`$ i.e.,

$`{\displaystyle \frac{i}{2}}\delta \omega ^{\mu \nu }=i\rho ^aϵ(_aX^\mu X^\nu +X^\mu _aX^\nu _aX^\mu X^\nu X^\mu _aX^\nu ).`$ (10)
By using the equation (1) this transformation takes the simple form

$`\delta \omega ^{\mu \nu }=i\rho ^a_a\mathrm{\Theta }^{\mu \nu }ϵ.`$ (11)
Note that the transformations of the equations (2) and (9) also lead to the results (7) and (11), respectively. Now we have a new Majorana spinor $`\omega ^{\mu \nu }=\left(\begin{array}{c}\omega _{}^{\mu \nu }\\ \omega _+^{\mu \nu }\end{array}\right)`$ which is antisymmetric under the exchange of the indices $`\mu `$ and $`\nu `$.

The transformations (7) and (11) form a closed algebra, that is for two successive transformations $`\delta _ϵ`$ and $`\delta _ϵ^{}`$ we obtain

$`[\delta _ϵ,\delta _ϵ^{}]\mathrm{\Theta }^{\mu \nu }=2i\overline{ϵ}\rho ^aϵ^{}_a\mathrm{\Theta }^{\mu \nu },`$ (12)
$`[\delta _ϵ,\delta _ϵ^{}]\omega ^{\mu \nu }=2i\overline{ϵ}\rho ^aϵ^{}_a\omega ^{\mu \nu }.`$
Note that closeness of algebra means that the commutator of two supersymmetry transformations gives a spatial translation. This can be seen from the above equations.

## 3 Star product between various fields

Now we find star product between the worldsheet fields and between superfields. Making derivative of the equation (1) with respect to the light-cone coordinates $`\sigma ^\pm `$, leads to the equation

$`{\displaystyle \frac{i}{2}}_\pm \mathrm{\Theta }^{\mu \nu }=_\pm X^\mu X^\nu +X^\mu _\pm X^\nu _\pm X^\mu X^\nu X^\mu _\pm X^\nu .`$ (13)
According to the supersymmetry this equation gives

$`{\displaystyle \frac{i}{2}}\mathrm{\Omega }^{\mu \nu }=\psi ^\mu X^\nu +X^\mu \psi ^\nu \psi ^\mu X^\nu X^\mu \psi ^\nu ,`$ (14)
where we introduced the spinor $`\mathrm{\Omega }^{\mu \nu }`$ as super-partner of $`\mathrm{\Theta }^{\mu \nu }`$. The equations (8) and (14) give the equality $`\mathrm{\Omega }^{\mu \nu }=\omega ^{\mu \nu }`$. Therefore, the equations (7), (8) and (11) imply $`\mathrm{\Theta }^{\mu \nu }`$ and $`\omega ^{\mu \nu }`$ are super-partner of each other. Again note that the equation (8) is definition of star product between the worldsheet bosons $`\{X^\mu \}`$ and the worldsheet fermions $`\{\psi ^\mu \}`$. It is not definition of the spinor $`\omega ^{\mu \nu }`$. We shall give an appropriate action for $`\omega ^{\mu \nu }`$.

From the equation (13) we obtain

$`_+X^\mu _{}X^\nu +_{}X^\mu _+X^\nu =_+X^\mu _{}X^\nu +_{}X^\mu _+X^\nu +{\displaystyle \frac{i}{2}}_+_{}\mathrm{\Theta }^{\mu \nu },`$ (15)
Using the supersymmetry, leads to the equation

$`\psi _+^\mu \psi _{}^\nu +\psi _{}^\mu \psi _+^\nu =\psi _+^\mu \psi _{}^\nu +\psi _{}^\mu \psi _+^\nu +{\displaystyle \frac{i}{2}}_+_{}\mathrm{\Theta }^{\mu \nu }.`$ (16)
This shows the star product between the components of the spinor fields of the string worldsheet. This product, similar to the equation (8), naturally is defined by two terms that contain star product. The equation (16) also can be obtained from the equation (8).

According to the equations (1), (8) and (16) we can find star product and noncommutativity parameter for a space with worldsheet superfields as its coordinates. A superfield in general has the form

$`Y^\mu =X^\mu +\overline{\theta }\psi ^\mu +{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\overline{\theta }\theta B^\mu ,`$ (17)
where the Grassmann coordinates $`\theta ^1`$ and $`\theta ^2`$ form a two dimensional Majorana spinor $`\theta =\left(\begin{array}{c}\theta ^1\\ \theta ^2\end{array}\right)`$. Under the supersymmetry, this field transforms as $`\delta Y^\mu =\overline{ϵ}Q(Y^\mu )`$, where the generator $`Q=\frac{}{\overline{\theta }}+i\rho ^a\theta _a`$ represents supersymmetry on the superspace. The commutator of two superfields with star product is

$`[Y^\mu ,Y^\nu ]_{}=i\mathrm{\Phi }^{\mu \nu }i(\mathrm{\Theta }^{\mu \nu }+\overline{\theta }\omega ^{\mu \nu }+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\overline{\theta }\theta \mathrm{\Gamma }^{\mu \nu }),`$ (18)
where the matrix $`\mathrm{\Gamma }^{\mu \nu }`$ is

$`\mathrm{\Gamma }^{\mu \nu }=i(\overline{\psi }^\mu \psi ^\nu \overline{\psi }^\nu \psi ^\mu ).`$ (19)
The antisymmetric tensor $`\mathrm{\Phi }^{\mu \nu }`$ shows the noncommutativity parameter of the space $`\{Y^\mu \}`$. This parameter depends on the superspace coordinates $`\sigma ,\tau ,\theta ^1`$ and $`\theta ^2`$. The various components of $`\mathrm{\Phi }^{\mu \nu }`$ i.e., $`\mathrm{\Theta }^{\mu \nu }`$, $`\omega ^{\mu \nu }`$ and $`\mathrm{\Gamma }^{\mu \nu }`$ show the noncommutativity of $`XX`$, $`X\psi `$ and $`\psi \psi `$ subspaces.

We know that usual product of two superfields $`Y^\mu `$ and $`Y^\nu `$ is a superfield i.e., $`\delta (Y^\mu Y^\nu )=\overline{ϵ}Q(Y^\mu Y^\nu )`$. This also holds by star product i.e., $`Y^\mu Y^\nu `$ is a superfield. Now we show this. The star product is

$`Y^\mu Y^\nu =Y^\mu Y^\nu +{\displaystyle \frac{i}{2}}\mathrm{\Lambda }^{\mu \nu },`$ (20)
where $`\mathrm{\Lambda }^{\mu \nu }`$ is

$`\mathrm{\Lambda }^{\mu \nu }=\mathrm{\Theta }^{\mu \nu }+\overline{\theta }\omega ^{\mu \nu }+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\overline{\theta }\theta \lambda ^{\mu \nu },`$ (21)
$`\lambda ^{\mu \nu }=2i(\overline{\psi }^\mu \psi ^\nu \overline{\psi }^\mu \psi ^\nu ).`$
Since $`Y^\mu Y^\nu `$ is a superfield, it is sufficient to show that $`\mathrm{\Lambda }^{\mu \nu }`$ also is a superfield. Using the equations (1) and (8) for $`\mathrm{\Theta }^{\mu \nu }`$ and $`\omega ^{\mu \nu }`$ and also applying the geometrical transformations $`\delta \theta =ϵ`$ and $`\delta \sigma ^a=i\overline{ϵ}\rho ^a\theta `$, lead to the equation

$`\delta \mathrm{\Lambda }^{\mu \nu }=\overline{ϵ}Q(\mathrm{\Lambda }^{\mu \nu }),`$ (22)
that is, $`\mathrm{\Lambda }^{\mu \nu }`$ is a superfield and therefore, $`Y^\mu Y^\nu `$ is superfield,

$`\delta (Y^\mu Y^\nu )=\overline{ϵ}Q(Y^\mu Y^\nu ).`$ (23)
In the same way, it is easy to show that the noncommutativity parameter $`\mathrm{\Phi }^{\mu \nu }`$ also is superfield.

The superfield $`\mathrm{\Lambda }^{\mu \nu }`$ gives the following supersymmetry transformations

$`\delta \mathrm{\Theta }^{\mu \nu }=\overline{ϵ}\omega ^{\mu \nu },`$ (24)
$`\delta \omega ^{\mu \nu }=i\rho ^aϵ_a\mathrm{\Theta }^{\mu \nu }+ϵ\lambda ^{\mu \nu },`$
$`\delta \lambda ^{\mu \nu }=i\overline{ϵ}\rho ^a_a\omega ^{\mu \nu }.`$
For compatibility with the equations (7) and (11), $`\lambda ^{\mu \nu }`$ and $`\delta \lambda ^{\mu \nu }`$ should vanish i.e.,

$`\overline{\psi }^\mu \psi ^\nu =\overline{\psi }^\mu \psi ^\nu ,`$ (25)
$`\rho ^a_a\omega ^{\mu \nu }=0.`$ (26)
Since $`\mathrm{\Theta }^{\mu \nu }`$ is super-partner of $`\omega ^{\mu \nu }`$, the equation (26) implies

$`^a_a\mathrm{\Theta }^{\mu \nu }=0.`$ (27)
The equations (16), (25) and (27) tell us that star product between components of the worldsheet fermions $`\{\psi ^\mu \}`$ is usual product that is, $`\psi _A^\mu \psi _B^\nu =\psi _A^\mu \psi _B^\nu `$, where $`A,B\{+,\}`$.

## 4 Action of the fields $`\mathrm{\Theta }^{\mu \nu }`$ and $`\omega ^{\mu \nu }`$

According to the supersymmetry transformations (7) and (11) and the equations (26) and (27) we can write the following action for $`\mathrm{\Theta }^{\mu \nu }`$ and $`\omega ^{\mu \nu }`$,

$`S^{}={\displaystyle \frac{1}{4\pi \alpha ^{}}}{\displaystyle d^2\sigma (_a\mathrm{\Theta }^{\mu \nu }^a\mathrm{\Theta }_{\mu \nu }i\overline{\omega }^{\mu \nu }\rho ^a_a\omega _{\mu \nu })}.`$ (28)
The equations (26) and (27) are equations of motion that can be extracted from this action. The fields $`\mathrm{\Theta }^{\mu \nu }(\sigma ,\tau )`$ and $`\omega ^{\mu \nu }(\sigma ,\tau )`$ are massless bosons and fermions that live in the worldsheet of superstring.

Under the supersymmetry transformations (7) and (11) this action is invariant. The supercurrent associated to this symmetry is

$`𝒥_a={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\rho ^b\rho _a\omega ^{\mu \nu }_b\mathrm{\Theta }_{\mu \nu }.`$ (29)
This is a conserved current i.e., $`^a𝒥_a=0`$. The light-cone components of this current are

$`𝒥_+=\omega _+^{\mu \nu }_+\mathrm{\Theta }_{\mu \nu },`$ (30)
$`𝒥_{}=\omega _{}^{\mu \nu }_{}\mathrm{\Theta }_{\mu \nu }.`$
Now we verify the quantization of the $`\mathrm{\Theta }\omega `$-system. Quantization of the fermionic degrees of freedom is achieved by imposing the canonical anti-commutation relations. The canonical momenta conjugate to $`\omega _\pm ^{\mu \nu }`$ are

$`\mathrm{\Pi }_\pm ^{\mu \nu }(\sigma ,\tau )={\displaystyle \frac{i}{4\pi \alpha ^{}}}\omega _\pm ^{\mu \nu }.`$ (31)
Using the equal $`\tau `$ anti-commutators, we obtain

$`\{\omega _A^{\mu \nu }(\sigma ,\tau ),\omega _B^{\rho \lambda }(\sigma ^{},\tau )\}={\displaystyle \frac{\pi }{2}}(\eta ^{\mu \rho }\eta ^{\nu \lambda }\eta ^{\mu \lambda }\eta ^{\nu \rho })\delta (\sigma \sigma ^{})\delta _{AB}.`$ (32)
Both sides under the exchanges $`\mu \nu `$ or $`\rho \lambda `$ change their signs. Also both sides under the exchanges $`\mu \rho ,\nu \lambda ,\sigma \sigma ^{}`$ and $`AB`$ are invariant. The canonical momentum conjugate to $`\mathrm{\Theta }^{\mu \nu }`$ is

$`\mathrm{\Pi }^{\mu \nu }(\sigma ,\tau )={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2\pi \alpha ^{}}}_\tau \mathrm{\Theta }^{\mu \nu }.`$ (33)
Quantization of the bosonic degrees of freedom can be obtained by canonical commutation relations

$`[_\pm \mathrm{\Theta }^{\mu \nu }(\sigma ,\tau ),_\pm \mathrm{\Theta }^{\rho \lambda }(\sigma ^{},\tau )]=\pm {\displaystyle \frac{i\pi }{4}}(\eta ^{\mu \rho }\eta ^{\nu \lambda }\eta ^{\mu \lambda }\eta ^{\nu \rho })\delta ^{}(\sigma \sigma ^{}),`$ (34)
$`[_+\mathrm{\Theta }^{\mu \nu }(\sigma ,\tau ),_{}\mathrm{\Theta }^{\rho \lambda }(\sigma ^{},\tau )]=0.`$ (35)
Under the exchanges $`\mu \rho ,\nu \lambda `$ and $`\sigma \sigma ^{}`$ these equations are invariant.

According to the equations (32), (34) and (35) the algebra that the supercurrent (30) generates, is

$`\{𝒥_+(\sigma ),𝒥_+(\sigma ^{})\}=\pi \delta (\sigma \sigma ^{})𝒯_{++}(\sigma ),`$ (36)
$`\{𝒥_{}(\sigma ),𝒥_{}(\sigma ^{})\}=\pi \delta (\sigma \sigma ^{})𝒯_{}(\sigma ),`$
$`\{𝒥_+(\sigma ),𝒥_{}(\sigma ^{})\}=0,`$
where $`𝒯_{++}`$ and $`𝒯_{}`$ are the non-zero light-cone components of the energy momentum tensor, extracted from the action (28),

$`𝒯_{++}=_+\mathrm{\Theta }^{\mu \nu }_+\mathrm{\Theta }_{\mu \nu }+{\displaystyle \frac{i}{2}}\omega _+^{\mu \nu }_+\omega _{+\mu \nu },`$ (37)
$`𝒯_{}=_{}\mathrm{\Theta }^{\mu \nu }_{}\mathrm{\Theta }_{\mu \nu }+{\displaystyle \frac{i}{2}}\omega _{}^{\mu \nu }_{}\omega _{\mu \nu }.`$
The algebra (36) is similar to the algebra of the supercurrent associated with the supersymmetry transformations (5).

## 5 Other symmetries

The superstring action (3) under the Poincaré transformations is invariant. These transformations are

$`\delta X^\mu =a_\nu ^\mu X^\nu +b^\mu ,`$ (38)
$`\delta \psi ^\mu =a_\nu ^\mu \psi ^\nu ,`$
where $`a_{\mu \nu }`$ is a constant antisymmetric matrix and $`b^\mu `$ is a constant vector that shows translation.

Application of the transformations (38) in the equations (1) and (8) induces the following transformations to the fields $`\mathrm{\Theta }^{\mu \nu }`$ and $`\omega ^{\mu \nu }`$,

$`\delta \mathrm{\Theta }^{\mu \nu }=(a_\rho ^\mu \delta _\lambda ^\nu a_\rho ^\nu \delta _\lambda ^\mu )\mathrm{\Theta }^{\rho \lambda },`$ (39)
$`\delta \omega ^{\mu \nu }=(a_\rho ^\mu \delta _\lambda ^\nu a_\rho ^\nu \delta _\lambda ^\mu )\omega ^{\rho \lambda }.`$ (40)
Since the translation $`b^\mu `$ is independent of the spacetime coordinates $`\{X^\mu \}`$, it does not appear to these transformations. Note that application of the transformations (38) in the equations (2) and (9) also gives the results (39) and (40).

The action (28) under the transformations (39) and (40) is invariant. This invariance leads to the current

$`J_a^{\mu \nu \rho \lambda }={\displaystyle \frac{1}{\pi }}(\mathrm{\Theta }^{\mu \nu }_a\mathrm{\Theta }^{\rho \lambda }\mathrm{\Theta }^{\rho \lambda }_a\mathrm{\Theta }^{\mu \nu }+i\overline{\omega }^{\mu \nu }\rho _a\omega ^{\rho \lambda }).`$ (41)
Under the exchange of the indices, this current satisfies the following identities

$`J_a^{\mu \nu \rho \lambda }=J_a^{\nu \mu \rho \lambda }=J_a^{\mu \nu \lambda \rho }=J_a^{\rho \lambda \mu \nu }.`$ (42)
According to the equations of motion, this is a conserved current i.e.,

$`^aJ_a^{\mu \nu \rho \lambda }=0.`$ (43)
Since the transformation (39) only rotates $`\mathrm{\Theta }^{\mu \nu }`$ but does not translate it, there is no current for translation.

The action (28) also is symmetric under the following linear transformations

$`\delta \mathrm{\Theta }^{\mu \nu }=A_{\rho \lambda }^{\mu \nu }\mathrm{\Theta }^{\rho \lambda }+b^{\mu \nu },`$ (44)
$`\delta \omega ^{\mu \nu }=A_{\rho \lambda }^{\mu \nu }\omega ^{\rho \lambda },`$
where $`b^{\mu \nu }`$ and $`A_{\rho \lambda }^{\mu \nu }`$ satisfy the following identities

$`A_{\rho \lambda }^{\mu \nu }=A_{\rho \lambda }^{\nu \mu }=A_{\lambda \rho }^{\mu \nu }=A_{\rho \lambda }^{\mu \nu },`$ (45)
$`b^{\mu \nu }=b^{\nu \mu }.`$
The currents associated to the transformations (44), are the current (41) and the current

$`P_a^{\mu \nu }={\displaystyle \frac{1}{\pi }}_a\mathrm{\Theta }^{\mu \nu }.`$ (46)
This current is a result of the translation of $`\mathrm{\Theta }^{\mu \nu }`$. Also it is a conserved current i.e.,

$`^aP_a^{\mu \nu }=0.`$ (47)
In addition to the supersymmetry, the induced Poincaré symmetry and the symmetry under the transformations (44), the action (28) similar to the action (3), also is symmetric under the reparametrization of the parameters $`\sigma `$ and $`\tau `$ and the Weyl scaling of the worldsheet metric.

## 6 Conclusions

We considered the noncommutativity parameter as a bosonic field of the string worldsheet. By applying the worldsheet supersymmetry, a super-partner was associated to it. We found the supersymmetry transformations of these new fields. Therefore, in a natural way we obtained star products between the boson-boson, boson-fermion and fermion-fermion fields. According to these products the noncommutativity parameter of the superfields (functions on the worldsheet superspace) was obtained. We saw that star product of two superfields (like usual product of them) is a superfield. Therefore, the noncommutativity parameter of these superfields transforms as a superfield.

From the equations of motion and the supersymmetry transformations of this system, we obtained action of the system. By quantizing the system, we obtained the algebra of the supercurrent. For this action we extracted the induced Poincaré symmetry and the current associated to it. This four indices current satisfies some identities. We showed that invariance under the transformations (44), leads to the above four indices current and a conserved current for the translation of the noncommutativity parameter. Also this action under the reparametrization of the worldsheet coordinates, the Weyl scaling of the worldsheet metric is invariant.


format: text

text:
# A radio catalog of Galactic HII regions for applications from decimeter to millimeter wavelengths

## 1 Introduction

HII regions are very important radio sources within our Galaxy. They not only provide information about the early stages of stellar formation but represent also a unique tool to investigate the Galactic spiral structure. Moreover, their radio emission, not attenuated by dust extinction, is powerful enough to enable us to probe distant parts of the Galactic plane. Despite their astrophysical relevance, there is no currently available comprehensive catalog of these objects. A few optical catalogs (Sharpless 1959; Marsálková 1974; Fich $`\&`$ Blitz 1982) do exist but they are severely limited by the dust obscuration effects mentioned above. At radio wavelengths, the most comprehensive catalog of diffuse brightness nebulae is the $`COBE`$-HII Catalog at 2.7 GHz (Witebsky 1978a, 1978b). It includes 909 objects and has provided a reliable tool for estimating the contribution of HII regions to Galactic free-free in the analysis of the $`COBE`$ data. More recently, a list of 760 objects with angular diameter less than $`10^{}`$ has been compiled by Kuchar $`\&`$ Clark 1997 from the Green Bank (Condon et al. 1989) and Parkes-MIT-NRAO (Condon et al. 1993; Tasker et al. 1994) radio surveys at 4.85 GHz.
These catalogs can now be combined and updated with other recently published data. A strong motivation supporting this work is its relevance to cosmic microwave background (CMB) studies. Since the successful results of the $`COBE`$ satellite (Smoot et al. 1992), increasing efforts have been devoted to investigating the cosmological information contained in the CMB anisotropies. Recent balloon experiments such as BOOMERANG (de Bernardis et al. 2000) and MAXIMA-1 (Hanany et al. 2000) as well as ground interferometer experiments as DASI (Leitch et al. 2002), CBI (Mason et al. 2001) and VSA (Scott et al. 2002) have achieved remarkable results but, at the same time, have shown the necessity to improve our knowledge of all the relevant astrophysical foregrounds which may affect the recovery of the CMB angular power spectrum and, ultimately, of the cosmological parameters. In particular, the free-free emission is the least known among the Galactic foregrounds. However, much of the free-free emission at low Galactic latitudes is produced by individual bright HII regions. Because of their strong emission, they may represent a potential source of contamination for the new generation of nearly full-sky coverage CMB anisotropy space missions at high sensitivity and resolution. These sources are also good candidates for receiver and antenna pattern calibration.
By collecting the information from 24 previously published lists and catalogs, we present in this paper a comprehensive catalog (Master Catalog) of 1442 Galactic HII regions. For each object, we quote the original fluxes and diameters as well as the available information on radio recombination line velocities, line widths and line temperatures and the errors on all these quantitities.
By exploiting these data we produce a Synthetic Catalog of fluxes and diameters (with corresponding errors) at 2.7 GHz, motivated by the extensive although not complete information available at this frequency, widely spread among the different catalogs, and by its relevance for both detailed studies on Galactic HII regions and the extrapolation up to millimetric wavelengths. We discuss also some possible applications of this Synthetic Catalog to CMB studies. The paper is organized as follows. Sect. 2 presents the stages of the Master Catalog compilation (e.g., the selection criteria for the reference papers and the removal of non-thermal sources) and briefly summarizes the content of the final compilation, while an accurate and full description of the catalog content is given in Appendix I. Sect. 3 describes the production of the Synthetic Catalog at 2.7 GHz. Sect. 4 concerns the completeness and flux limit of the catalog and the spatial distribution of the listed sources. Perspectives of possible applications of this Synthetic Catalog to CMB studies are presented in Sect. 5. Finally, we draw our main conclusions in Sect. 6.

## 2 The Master Catalog compilation

In this section we discuss the data processing which was applied to convert the information from the various reference catalogs into a uniform format for easy intercomparison in a Master Catalog.

### 2.1 Selection of the original catalogs

The Master Catalog was compiled from the 24 radio catalogs shown in Table 1. We follow the classification of HII regions by Lockman et al. 1996 and only include catalogs of diffuse and compact HII regions. Surveys of ultra-compact (UCHII) and extremely extended objects (EHE) will be considered in a forthcoming extension of the present list: they are bright in the infrared (UCHII) and in the optical (EHE) but relatively weak at radio frequencies.

The reason for following this route is driven by the general goals of the work. Planned and on-going CMB experiments typically have angular resolutions ranging from a few arcmin up to tens of arcmin in order to exploit the wealth of cosmological information encoded in the CMB anisotropies. Therefore, diffuse and compact HII regions – with a typical angular extension of a few arcmin – are the most important to be taken into account if we want to investigate the free-free emission as a contaminant of the CMB.
We have therefore considered single-dish medium-resolution observations, typically with beamwidths of a few arcmin, rather than interferometer or synthesis telescope surveys (Becker et al. 1994; Taylor et al. 1996) which usually achieve a resolution of a few arcsec. Also, single-dish low-resolution observations (Westerhout 1958; Wilson $`\&`$ Bolton 1960), whose typical angular resolution is $`1^{}`$, have not been included in the sample of selected references in order to avoid problems arising from double-counting of the sources. Likewise we have not considered surveys simply oriented to the study of the morphology and spectral behaviour of the diffuse Galactic radiation at centimetric wavelengths (Reich et al. 1984; Reich et al. 1990; Fürst et al. 1990a; Fürst et al 1990b; Duncan et al. 1995).

### 2.2 Identification and removal of SNRs

The selected catalogs may contain in principle also some Galactic sources, different from HII regions, that we need to exclude from our Master Catalog compilation. Therefore, supernova remnants (SNRs) of each selected catalog have been identified by comparing the coordinates of the catalog sources with those of the catalog of Galactic supernova remnants by Green 2000. The identification has been performed taking into account the average position uncertainty of the selected catalogs of HII regions and of the Green Catalog (both $`1^{}`$).

### 2.3 Quoted flux densities and angular diameters

We provide the flux densities integrated over each source, $`S`$, and the source angular diameter, $`\mathrm{\Theta }_{HII}`$. In a few references (Wink et al. 1982 at 86 GHz; Wink et al. 1983) the flux density is given only as a peak value. We correct this to a true value by assuming that the source has a Gaussian profile and using the observed diameter (see Rohlfs 1990).
The source angular diameter is given in terms of observed diameter in a few references (Altenhoff et al. 1979, Downes et al 1980; Wink et al. 1983). We derive a true diameter again assuming a Gaussian source profile. For source dimensions significantly smaller than the beamwidth, the references give upper limit diameters. The Master Catalogs includes these derived flux densities and diameters for completeness.

### 2.4 Other relevant data

In addition to the basic data on flux density and diameter, for each source there are available further relevant data which make the catalog more useful.
We include the notes from Kuchar $`\&`$ Clark 1997 on the environment of each source, indicating whether the source is complex or if it has a strong source nearby. Again, following Kuchar $`\&`$ Clark 1997 we give radio counterparts in other catalogs other than those referred to in Sect. 2.1. Optical counterparts of the unobscured sources are obtained from the identification given in the Catalog by Mársalková 1974.
We include available radio recombination line data because they provide important information on kinematics, distances and electron density for each HII region. The data are given by Downes et al. 1980, Caswell $`\&`$ Haynes 1987, Kuchar $`\&`$ Clark 1997, Reifenstein et al. 1970, Wilson et al. 1970, Wink et al. 1982 and Wink et al. 1983 in the source catalogs listed in Sect. 2.1 and are complemented by the recombination line data of Lockman 1989.

### 2.5 The Master Catalog

All sources observed at least by one of the surveys of Table 1 and recognized as Galactic HII regions were included in the Master Catalog. 1442 sources are listed. All relevant information from each of the reference catalogs is retained. Data for individual HII regions are available from the references at 8 frequencies (1.4, 2.7, 3.9, 4.8, 5., 14.7, 15 and 86 GHz). This large data base is presented in a readily accessible form as 11 sub-catalogs:

sub-catalog 1 coordinates (epoch 2000) and remarks
sub-catalog 2 / 3 flux density (Jy) / 1–$`\sigma `$ ($`\%`$) error
sub-catalog 4 / 5 diameter (arcmin) / 1–$`\sigma `$ ($`\%`$) error
sub-catalog 6 / 7 line velocity (km/sec) / 1–$`\sigma `$ error (km/sec)
sub-catalog 8 / 9 line width (km/sec) / 1–$`\sigma `$ error (km/sec)
sub-catalog 10 / 11 line temperature (K) / 1–$`\sigma `$ error (K).

The sub-catalogs give, for each source, an identification number along with the position in Galactic and celestial coordinates. Apart from sub-catalog 1, each sub-catalog has 37 columns. The columns are in order of increasing frequency of observation; at each frequency the columns are in alphabetical order of the references in Table 1. We note that for sub-catalog 6-11 (the radio recombination line data) the observations may refer to frequencies other than those in the main continuum catalog (in this case, the line frequency is reported).
Appendix I gives a detailed description of the content of each sub-catalog.

## 3 The Synthetic Catalog at 2.7 GHz

The final task in bringing together the wide-spread radio data on HII regions is to construct a readily accessible catalog summarizing the basic information on each of the 1442 sources covered in the comprehensive data base of the Master Catalog. This Synthetic Catalog gives the best available data on flux density, angular diameter and, where available, the line velocity.
2.7 GHz was chosen as the base frequency for the Synthetic Catalog; it lies in the middle of the frequency range of those catalogs containing most of the data, namely 1.4, 2.7 and 5 GHz. Since there is not complete source coverage at any one frequency, we derive the flux density at 2.7 GHz from the observed frequencies for all the sources. We now describe how best-estimate values of the flux density, diameter and velocity with corresponding error estimates are derived from the Master Catalog.

### 3.1 Flux density estimates at 2.7 GHz

We estimate the flux density at 2.7 GHz in four different ways:

1. we use the flux density measures at 2.7 GHz when these are available;
2. if there are no flux density measures at 2.7 GHz and there are available measures at only one other frequency, we extrapolate these values to 2.7 GHz with the theoretical spectral index $`\alpha =0.1`$ ($`S\nu ^\alpha `$) which is typical of thermal bremsstrahlung emission in a thin plasma;
3. if there are flux density measures only at frequencies $``$ 14.7 GHz, we first select the lowest among the given frequencies – averaging over 14.7 and 15 GHz when both are available – and then extrapolate to 2.7 GHz with $`\alpha =0.1`$;
4. if there are only flux density measures at frequencies other than 2.7 GHz and at least one measure at $`\nu 5`$ GHz, we follow these lines: we exclude the values at 3.9, 14.7, 15 and 86 GHz, we take the weighted average between 4.8 and 5 GHz if both measures are available, we interpolate the remaining values to 2.7 GHz (or extrapolate with $`\alpha =0.1`$ if only one frequency measure is left).

We consider the data at 3.9, 14.7, 15 and 86 GHz less reliable for the following reasons: the 3.9 GHz measure may be significantly affected by the ellipticity of the antenna pattern; at 14.7 and 15 GHz the observing resolution is much higher than the typical reference catalogs resolution; at 86 GHz, in addition to the higher resolution, dust emission may contribute largely to the observed flux. Moreover, we prefer to interpolate between 1.4 and 5 GHz rather than extrapolate to 2.7 GHz directly from only one of these two frequencies because we have no information on the frequency location of the free-free knee.
In cases when multiple observations are available at the same frequency, a weighted mean flux density is computed, using the errors discussed below.

For the majority of the sources in the reference catalogs, flux density errors are quoted and these are used in deriving the flux density and its error in the Synthetic Catalog. In the catalogs where no errors are given, an estimate of the error is made by comparing the flux $`S_{}`$ from a catalog without errors with the flux $`S`$ from a catalog (or some catalogs) giving errors. In particular, we compute the relative (%) dispersion, $`\sigma =100(S_{}S)/S`$, and try to fit the resulting distribution in the $`S_{}\sigma `$ plane with a constant, $`\sigma =a`$ , a linear, $`\sigma =a+bS_{}`$, and a quadratic, $`\sigma =a+bS_{}+cS_{}^2`$, dependence of $`\sigma `$ on $`S_{}`$. In these equations the fluxes are in Jy. Before fitting the $`\sigma (S_{})`$ distribution, we remove the relatively small number of points with a dispersion $`130\%`$. Although we have considered also fits with a constant, linear, and quadratic dependence of $`\mathrm{log}\sigma `$ on $`\mathrm{logS}_{}`$, we prefer to use the distributions recovered from the fit carried out with linear variables, since they give, as expected, typical values of $`\sigma (S_{})`$ larger than those obtained in the case of logarithmic variables and so giving more conservative error estimates. Fig. 1 shows the results of the procedure we have described.
An example of the estimates of errors is given by the early Parkes 2.7 GHz catalogs. We compare the list of Parkes sources to the reference catalogs at the same frequency – 2.7 GHz – (namely, Altenhoff et al. 1970, F$`\ddot{u}`$rst et al. 1987, Reich et al. 1986, Wendker 1970), in order to retrieve the subset of Parkes sources whose flux has been quoted with an estimated error. In particular, the comparison retrieves 105 sources in common with the Altenhoff et al. 1970 catalog. The scatter $`\sigma `$ in the flux density differences, quite well fitted by the law $`\sigma 33.50.1\times S`$, is comparable to the errors of 10–30 % of the Altenhoff et al. catalog alone.
Similar comparisons have been carried out for the Mezger $`\&`$ Henderson 1967 data and for Wink et al. 1983 data. However, as for the Mezger $`\&`$ Henderson data, the comparison with other single catalogs does not provide a significant statistical subset of sources. Therefore, we estimate the error by considering simultaneously the sources from the Mezger $`\&`$ Henderson catalog and from all the other catalogs at 5 GHz (which leads to consider altogether 38 common sources). For the Wink et al. 1983 catalog, we derive an error estimate from the comparison with the Wink et al. 1982 catalog for which we have 21 common sources.
After having estimated the errors on the flux density measures for all catalogs, we compute the errors on the flux densities of the Synthetic Catalog at 2.7 GHz. When an extrapolation with a spectral index $`\alpha =0.1`$ from a measure at a single frequency different from 2.7 GHz is applied, we use the standard error propagation rules. No error on $`\alpha `$ is included in the error propagation, for simplicity.
Table 3 summarizes the errors quoted in the original catalogs and those estimated in this work.

### 3.2 Angular diameter

We discuss here the assignment of an angular diameter with its associated error for every source in the Synthetic Catalog. The published diameter data are not as comprehensive as the flux density data described in Sect. 3.1; nevertheless we will assign a value of the diameter and an error for each source. For 42 % of the sources (derived from the Parkes catalogs and those of Mezger $`\&`$ Henderson 1967, Wendker 1970, Wink et al. 1982, Wink et al. 1983, Berlin et al. 1985) there are no listed diameter errors. For 14 % of the sources no diameter is given; for these we derive an indicative diameter.

We assign a diameter for sources in the Synthetic Catalog as follows:

1. when 2.7 GHz diameters are given, we use these values (possibly their weighted average);
2. if there is at least one diameter measure at 5 GHz or at 4.8 GHz, we neglect possible measurements at other frequencies and use this value or, alternatively, the weighted average of the diameter measures at 4.8 and 5 GHz when available, using the errors discussed below;
3. if diameter data are given only at frequencies other than $`4.85`$ GHz, we use the weighted average of the available frequencies, after previous exclusion of the measures at $`\nu 14.7`$ GHz, using the errors discussed below;
4. if no diameter data is given at frequencies lower than $`14.7`$ GHz, we use the available measure at 14.7 GHz or at 15 GHz or, alternatively, their weighted average when both values are provided using the errors discussed below (we remember that no diameter data are available at 86 GHz).

Values at 14.7 and 15 GHz are preferably excluded because of the much higher resolution at these frequencies than the typical reference catalog resolution. In each case, when multiple observations are available at the same frequency, a weighted mean is computed, using the errors discussed below.
Finally, we consider the assignment of a diameter to the 14 % of HII regions in the Synthetic Catalog which have no quoted diameter in the reference catalogs. It is possible to derive a first-order indicative diameter by noting that the flux density and the diameter of HII regions are weakly correlated, as shown in Fig 2 which includes all the sources at 2.7 GHz with measured diameters. The best fit to the data gives as indicative diameter $`\theta =2.25\times S`$ with a typical error of a factor of 2–3. Each source with an indicative diameter is annotated in the Synthetic Catalog; such diameter data clearly should not be used in astrophysical analyses of the catalog.

Following the same strategy as in Sect. 3.1, where a catalog has no quoted diameter errors we estimate an overall error for that catalog by comparing the observed diameters of that catalog with another catalog having an adequate number of sources in common. However, with respect to the flux density case, we can now relax the strict requirement of comparing only different datasets at the same frequency. As shown in Fig. 3, there is no significant frequency dependence in the measured diameters at 2.7 GHz (the Parkes survey) and at 5 GHz (Altenhoff et al. 1970, Mezger $`\&`$ Henderson 1967 and Reifenstein et al. 1970). On the other hand, provided that an adequate number of sources in common is retrieved, we prefer to consider in the comparison surveys at the same frequency and with similar angular resolution. Therefore, let $`\mathrm{\Theta }_{}`$ ($`\mathrm{\Theta }`$) be the source diameter measure in the catalog without quoted errors (with quoted errors). We compute the relative (%) dispersion $`\sigma `$ of the diameter measures, $`\sigma =100(\mathrm{\Theta }_{}\mathrm{\Theta })/\mathrm{\Theta }`$, and try to fit the resulting distribution in the $`\mathrm{\Theta }_{}\sigma `$ plane again with a constant, linear, and quadratic, dependence of $`\sigma `$ on $`\mathrm{\Theta }_{}`$ (or of $`\mathrm{log}\sigma `$ on $`\mathrm{log}\mathrm{\Theta }_{}`$; in this case the fit error estimates are again less conservative) and after removing the points with a dispersion $`130\%`$. In these equations the angular diameters are in arcmin.

Fig 4 shows the results of the error estimates. In particular, we consider the comparison between the following datasets (the first one is that for which we are estimating the errors): Altenhoff et al. 1970<sup>a</sup> vs. Reifenstein et al. 1970 (48 common sources); Altenhoff et al. 1970<sup>b</sup> vs. Kuchar $`\&`$ Clark 1997 (63 common sources); Caswell $`\&`$ Haynes 1987 vs. Wilson et al. 1970 (79 common sources); early Parkes 2.7 GHz Survey vs. Reifenstein et al. 1970 (31 common sources); Felli $`\&`$ Churchwell 1972 vs. Kuchar $`\&`$ Clark 1997 (21 common sources); Wendker 1970 vs. Reifenstein et al. 1970 (8 common sources); Wink et al. 1983 vs. Downes 1980 (59 common sources); Wink et al. 1982 vs. Altenhoff et al. 1979 (53 common sources).
As for the Altenhoff et al. 1970 catalog, the data have been split because the diameters have been measured in two different ways: either they were taken from a survey of Galactic sources made at 5 GHz with the 140-ft antenna - beamwidth $`6^{}`$ (W.J. Altenhoff, P.G. Mezger and J. Schraml, private communication) - or they were measured directly from contour maps. We will annotate the set of sources for which the size was measured in the 5 GHz survey Altenhoff et al. 1970<sup>a</sup> and the remaining sources Altenhoff et al. 1970<sup>b</sup>. For the Berlin et al. 1985 catalog, since none of the comparisons with other catalogs retrieves a significant number of common sources, we derive the error from the mean of the dispersions $`\sigma `$ given by each comparison. Table 3 summarizes the estimated and quoted errors used in calculating the diameters in the Synthetic Catalog.

### 3.3 Content of the Synthetic Catalog

The Synthetic Catalog summarizes the known radio frequency information on 1442 Galactic HII regions. It contains the position, flux density, diameter data for each HII region, supplemented by velocity data where available. To those HII region with no published diameter data, an indicative diameter is given (marked by $``$) on the basis of the flux-size correlation in Fig 2. For sake of clarity, the first ten lines of the Synthetic Catalog are reported in Table 2. The line velocity value that we quote in Col. 9 is the weighted average of the available data (see Sect. 2.4 for details). Although the original measures can be, for the same source, at different frequencies, the weighted average of these data is a meaningful quantity and provides a useful first-sight kinematic indication. Since the line velocity is an effect of the Galactic rotation motion, it does not strongly depend on the frequency of observation.

## 4 Statistical properties of the Synthetic Catalog

The Synthetic Catalog combines the observational data from 24 catalogs with various flux density limits and different angular resolutions. The Kuchar $`\&`$ Clark 1997 catalog, for example, reaches to a sensitivity of 30 mJy but is not sensitive to sources with diameters greater than $``$10 due to its beamswitching strategy.

Other surveys (e.g. Altenhoff et al., 1970) are sensitive to a wide range of angular scales but include only sources stronger than 1 Jy. We now consider the properties of the sources listed in the Synthetic Catalog in the light of these selection criteria.

### 4.1 Completeness and flux density limit

A useful way of investigating the completeness of a catalog is to plot the integral count N($`>S`$) as a function of flux density $`S`$. Fig 5 shows the integral count for the 1442 sources included in the Synthetic Catalog and for the five contributing catalogs containing more than 200 HII regions. It is evident that the Synthetic Catalog is losing sources fainter than $``$ 1 Jy. The data in the Synthetic Catalog for $`S<1`$ Jy are mainly contributed by the Kuchar $`\&`$ Clark 1997 catalog. Some 50 % of the sources at 1 Jy are contributed by this catalog, with a higher fraction at lower flux densities.

The absence of sources at lower flux densities is largely the consequence of source confusion along the Galactic plane. For example, in the region $`|`$l$`|<\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}60}^{}`$ there are 1200 Synthetic Catalog sources within the Galactic plane ($`|`$b$`|<\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}^{}`$); in a 10 beam (or a 10 diameter source) there is one HII region per 15 beam area which represents a significant confusion level.
It is clearly difficult to resolve into individual sources the structure seen in the central regions of the Galaxy. The majority, $`150`$, of the weaker ($`<`$ 1 Jy) sources catalogued by Kuchar $`\&`$ Clark are in the less complex regions of the Galaxy such as the anticentre region (quadrants 2 and 3) – 73 sources – and Galactic latitudes greater than 1 ($`|`$b$`|>\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}1}^{}`$) in quadrants 1 and 4 – 19 sources –.

### 4.2 Spatial distribution

The Galactic latitude and longitude distribution of the HII regions in the Synthetic Catalog are shown in Fig 6. A striking feature is the narrow distribution in Galactic latitude where the full width at half power is 0.95 when averaged over all longitudes; the mean Galactic latitude is b=0.05. This narrow distribution will reflect the distribution of the O and B stars responsible for the ionization.
The main concentration in longitude is at $`|`$ $`l`$ $`|`$ $`<`$ 60 where the line of sight cuts the spiral arms internal to the local arm in which the Sun lies. There are also discernable peaks at $`l`$ $``$ $`\pm `$ 80 associated with the local arm; the peak at $`l`$ $``$ 80 is the Cygnus X region where Wendker 1970 identified 77 HII regions in his survey. There is a clear deficit of sources in the anticentre region of the Galaxy ($`l`$=90–270). Although there is a less complete coverage in this sector of the Galactic plane as indicated in Table 1, the large deficit of sources is real. The optical study of the distribution of HII regions in the outer Galaxy by Fich $`\&`$ Blitz 1984 indicate that they are limited to R $`<`$ 20 Kpc.

## 5 Applications of the Synthetic Catalog

An extensive data base of radio observations of HII regions has been distilled into the Synthetic Catalog of 1442 objects at a frequency of 2.7 GHz. We consider some uses of this catalog and the associated Master Catalog for studies of individual HII regions over a range of frequencies and for CMB studies.

### 5.1 Detectability of HII regions

The sensitivity of a particular instrument in Kelvin to an HII region of a given flux density expressed in Jansky depends upon the observing frequency $`\nu `$, the beamwidth (FWHM), the sensitivity per second of integration and the observing time $`t`$ (the rms noise decreases with observing time $`t`$ as $`t^{\frac{1}{2}}`$). The rms noise in Jansky per second of integration, $`rms_{1s,f}`$, is related to the rms antenna temperature in Kelvin per second of integration, $`rms_{1s,a}`$, by:

$`(rms_{1s,f}/\mathrm{Jy})=2.95\times 10^3(\mathrm{FWHM}/\mathrm{arcmin})^2`$
$`(\nu /\mathrm{GHz})^2(rms_{1s,a}/\mathrm{K})`$
and the same relation holds between the source signal expressed in terms of flux density or of antenna temperature. Here the source is assumed to be point-like and observed at the centre of a Gaussian, symmetric beam. Eq. (1) can be then used to determine the S/N for a point source of a given flux density. In cases when a source with a diameter comparable or bigger than the FWHM of the observing beam is considered, a correcting factor to Eq. (1) is required to compute the S/N. In particular, the S/N is $``$ 40 to 90 $`\%`$ the value computed with Eq. (1) when a source with a diameter $`23`$ times the beamwidth or $`1/21/3`$ the beamwidth, respectively, is considered. The S/N represents an easy way to compare the signal produced by Galactic HII regions with the sensitivity of a typical CMB anisotropy experiment. Therefore, we apply the above treatment to the high resolution satellite experiment Planck by ESA <sup>1</sup><sup>1</sup>1http://planck.esa.nl, scheduled for launch in 2007. Planck will observe the entire sky with a sensitivity at the end of the mission of about 10 $`\mu `$K per resolution element. The beamwidths vary between $`33.6^{}`$ and $`5^{}`$ from 30 to 857 GHz respectively. For numerical estimates, we consider here the channels at 30 and 100 GHz which have a nominal FWHM of $``$ 33.6’ and 10’. For comparison, we make the same calculation for $`COBE`$-DMR for which, at 31.5 and 90 GHz the rms temperature was 150 and 100 $`\mu `$K and the beamwidth was 7 (Boggess et al. 1992).

The S/N for all the HII regions in the Synthetic Catalog have been calculated as discussed above; the flux densities were estimated at each frequency from 2.7 GHz values assuming a flux density proportional to $`\nu ^{0.1}`$. Fig. 7 shows the number of sources per bin of S/N (the distribution function) and number of sources greater than a certain S/N (cumulative distribution function) for both Planck and $`COBE`$-DMR at $``$ 30 and $``$ 100 GHz.

From Fig. 7 it is clear that the vast majority of sources in the Synthetic Catalog produces a signal which highly exceeds the detection threshold of the instrument. Therefore, not only all the Synthetic Catalog HII regions will be detected but also $`80\%`$ of these sources will have a S/N $`>`$ 100 (while the weakest sources, with S $``$ 10 mJy, will be seen with a S/N $``$ 3). As a consequence, Planck high sensitivity and high resolution should allow to significantly entend the existing HII regions data base. It is important to emphasize that none of the individual HII regions would have been seen by $`COBE`$-DMR whose flux sensitivity according to Eq. (1) is $`6\times 10^3`$ less than Planck at 30 GHz and $`4\times 10^4`$ less at 100 GHz.

### 5.2 Radio/millimeter studies of HII regions

The ionizing radiation from the central O/B stars produces the HII region which emits through the free-free mechanism from radio to submillimetric wavelenghts; the surrounding dust is also heated by radiation originally derived from the central stars and as a consequence radiates at submillimeter and IR wavelenghts. The flux density of the radiation from these two components was found to be equal in the wavelenght range 1-3 mm (100 to 300 GHz) by Kurtz et al. 1994 for a selection of compact HII regions. However, many interesting questions remain to be resolved in the physical relationship between the HII region and the radiation-heated dust cloud in which it is embedded. The Synthetic Catalog provides a rich source of HII regions for further study. Fig. 7 shows that many hundreds of HII regions will be detectable at high sensitivity and with adequate resolution over the frequency range 30 to 857 GHz by Planck. Thus, this may represent a good chance for a comparative study of the far-IR and radio continuum morphology of Galactic HII regions.
Moreover, source identification in IR experiments such as DENIS (Epchetein et al., 1994) and 2MASS (Kleinmann, 1992) can benefit from the crosscheck with the Synthetic Catalog. In fact, for these kind of experiments a major problem is the association of an observed source with a bright IR Galactic object like an HII region or an ultracompact HII region rather than with an external Galaxy.

### 5.3 Use of the Synthetic Catalog in CMB studies

We will consider in this subsection several applications of the Synthetic Catalog in CMB studies. The first use we discuss is the production of maps of the integrated free-free emission as seen with the angular resolution of an instrument such as Planck at each observing frequency. Free-free emission dominates the Galactic plane signal at least over the range 30 to 100 GHz. Fig. 8 shows the Galactic plane emission resulting from HII regions as seen by Planck at 30 GHz where the beamwidth is 33.6’.
To make the map in Fig. 8, we have implemented a code which simulates the contribution of each source in the Synthetic Catalog at a given angular resolution by assuming a symmetric Gaussian profile for the source brightness distribution and numerically convolves, in real space, the relevant part of the map – obtained after considering the contribution from all the sources in the catalog – with another symmetric Gaussian profile having the instrument FWHM. The final map is generated in HEALPix (Hierarchical Equal Area and IsoLatitude Pixelization of the Sphere, by Gòrski et al. 1998). Fig. 9 shows the strong Galactic centre and Cygnus X regions. Antenna temperature as high as $``$ 50 mK are seen.
Moreover, HII regions, as delineated in Fig. 8, can in principle represent a significant contribution – comparable to that produced by synchrotron and dust emission – to one of the most critical spurious effects in CMB surveys, the so-called straylight contamination through their integrated signal in the sidelobes (Burigana et al. 2001) which needs to be properly evaluated. The optical design of Planck and similar mapping instruments must be optimized to minimize this effect. In any case, the residual straylight should be taken into account in the data analysis.
HII regions also have a part to play in CMB imaging experiments as suitable calibrators and as probes of the pointing and beamshape. HII regions are non-variable and have quite a well-known spectrum which makes them valuable calibrators along with planets and the CMB dipole (Bersanelli et al. 1997). In addition, for space missions, they provide auxiliary data for inflight beam reconstruction and pointing by complementing the information from planet transits (Burigana et al. 2002) and from the interplay between amplitudes and phases of CMB signal with the instrumental noise (Chiang et al. 2002). In particular, the Chiang et al. method, although not requiring the use of bright sources, allows the reconstruction of the beam ellipticity only in the beam central regions while the Burigana et al. technique allows the complete reconstruction of the beam shape down to a level of -25 dB but makes use of non-variable, bright, compact sources. However, despite being originally conceived for planets, the Burigana et al. method can be easily extended to other classes of sources which also enable to increase the number of transits over the space mission lifetime. The Synthetic Catalog contains 36 HII regions which have a flux density $``$ 30 Jy at 30 GHz and a diameter $``$ than 5’. Accurate flux densities ad positions can be determined from ground-based aperture synthetis observations.
Finally, we point out that the angular extension of a typical Galactic HII region represents an intermediate case between point sources and diffuse foregrounds for which component separation tools have been specifically designed (see, e.g., Maino et al. 2001, and references therein). The fluctuations produced by such extended sources and the capability of existing component separation methods to handle with them will have to be furtherly investigated in the next years.

## 6 Conclusions

We have collected radio data of Galactic HII regions from 24 published works and built a self-consistent database of 1442 sources. This work has resulted in the construction of what we have called Master Catalog which consists in 11 different sub-catalogs storing the original information from the source references. In particular, the sub-catalogs list flux densities and diameters as well as radio line velocities, line widths and line temperatures; errors are given on these quantities.
From this large data set observed at a range of frequencies and beamwidths, we have produced a readibily accessible Synthetic Catalog giving the flux density, diameter and velocity (where available) at 2.7 GHz, the frequency where most data are given. Errors on these observed parameters are derived using the procedures discussed in Sect. 3.
It should be emphasized that the Catalog is a compilation of published radio data on HII regions; it is not a complete survey down to the faintest flux density level listed. We argue in Sect. 4 that it is probably complete to a flux density of 1 Jy. Nevertheless, the Catalog provides an up to date finding list for the brightest HII regions available for further study at microwave and submillimeter wavelenghts. The Synthetic Catalog is also particularly relevant to future high sensitivity CMB mapping projects such as Planck. We have shown in Sect. 5 that the HII region Galactic distribution can contribute to the straylight radiation, while individual compact bright HII regions have a role as calibrators and as pointing and beamshape indicators.
The Master Catalog and the Synthetic Catalog are available via ftp at: cdsarc.u-strasbg.fr.
Color figures can be obtained via e-mail request to paladini@sissa.it.

###### Acknowledgements.

We wish to thank C. Witebsky for providing us with the $`COBE`$-HII compilation and T.A. Kuchar and F.O. Clark for making their radio and IRAS data available prior to publication. We are also grateful to the CATS group for a constructive support to this work and to G. De Zotti and H.J. Wendker for useful discussions and suggestions. We thank L. Cambrecy for valuable comments to our work. R. Paladini acknowledges financial support from a N.A.T.O. International Exchange Scientific Programme grant and from a Marie Curie Training Site fellowship. We gratefully acknowledge K.M. Górski and all the people involved in the realization of the tools of HEALPix pixelisation.

Appendix I: the Master Catalog

The Master Catalog contains the original data taken from the source references of Table 1. Due to the extensive amount of information, we have divided for convenience the Master Catalog into 11 sub-catalogs. We give hereafter the description of the structure of each of these compilations while, for a general overview about the content of the sub-catalogs, we refer the reader to Sec. 2.5.
As mentioned in the main text (Sect. 2.5), each sub-catalog (except for Sub-catalog 1) has 37 columns and 1442 entries corresponding to the total number of sources. The columns are in order of increasing frequency of observation and, at each frequency, the columns are in alphabetical order of the references in Table 1. In all sub-catalogs, a null entry corresponds to no information available from the source reference.

Sub-catalog 1 lists only source coordinates, notes about the environment and radio/optical couterparts. For its content specificy, it presents a peculiar structure with respect to the other sub-catalogs. In details:
\- Col. 1: source-numbering (records from 1 to 1442)
\- Col. 2-3: Galactic coordinates, l and b
\- Col. 4-6: celestial coordinates: RA - J2000
\- Col. 7-9: celestial coordinate: DEC - J2000
\- Col. 10: general remarks - C= complex field, S= strong source nearby, X=strong source nearby ($`>`$ 10 Jy), radio or optical counterpart. This flags follow the definitions given by Kuchar $`\&`$ Clark 1997 according to which a source is in a complex field when there are two or more sources within either $`2\times \mathrm{\Theta }_{obs}`$ (i.e, four source radii) or $`2\times \mathrm{\Theta }_{beam}`$, whatever is larger <sup>2</sup><sup>2</sup>2In Kuchar $`\&`$ Clark’s paper, fluxes and angular sizes are measured directly from the survey images., or with a strong and/or much stronger source nearby.
As for the counterpart in other wavebands, for the case of the radio identifications: Ke refers to Kesteven 1968; NRAO to Pauliny-Toth 1966; W to Westerhout 1958; 3C to Third Cambridge Catalog (Bennett 1962) and 4C to Fourth Cambridge Catalog (Gower et al. 1967 - Pilkington et al. 1965).
For the optical identifications, the Mársalková Catalog 1974 has been consulted. In this case: BBW refers to Bok-Bester-Wade 1955; DWB to Dickel-Wendker-Bieritz 1969; Ge (a) to Georgelin-Georgelin 1970a; Ge (b) to Georgelin-Georgelin 1970b; Ge (c) to Georgelin-Georgelin 1970c; G to Gum 1955; H to Hoffleit 1953; RCW to Rodgers-Campbell-Whiteoak 1960; S to Sharpless 1959. Moreover, M stands for Messier Catalog; NGC for Dreyers’New General Catalog and IC for the Index Catalog.

Sub-catalog 2 to sub-catalog 11 have the following structure:
\- Col. 1: source-numbering (records from 1 to 1442)
\- Col. 2-3: Galactic coordinates, l and b
\- Col. 4-6: celestial coordinates: RA - J2000
\- Col. 7-9: celestial coordinate: DEC - J2000
\- Col. 10-11: 1.4 GHz - Altenhoff et al. (1970), Felli $`\&`$ Churchwell (1972)
\- Col. 12-23: 2.7 GHz - Altenhoff et al. 1970, Beard 1966, Beard $`\&`$ Kerr 1969, Beard et al. 1969, Day et al. 1969, Day et al. 1970, F$`\ddot{u}`$rst et al. 1987, Goss $`\&`$ Day 1970, Reich et al. 1986, Thomas $`\&`$ Day 1969a, Thomas $`\&`$ Day 1969b, Wendker 1970
\- Col. 24: 3.9 GHz - Berlin et al. 1985
\- Col. 25-26: 4.8 GHz - Kuchar $`\&`$ Clark 1997
\- Col. 27-34: 5 GHz - Altenhoff et al. 1970, Altenhoff et al. 1979, Caswell $`\&`$ Haynes 1987, Downes et al. 1980, Mezger $`\&`$ Henderson 1967, Reifenstein et al. 1970, Wilson et al. 1970, Wink et al. 1982
\- Col. 35: 14.7 GHz - Wink et al. 1983
\- Col. 36: 15 GHz - Wink et al. 1982
\- Col. 37: 86 GHz - Wink et al. 1982.

Note on sub-catalog 2 and sub-catalog 4: these sub-catalogs, including data on flux and angular diameters, always list values corrected for the instrument beam. Their complementary sub-catalogs are sub-catalog 3 and 5 quoting relative (%) errors.

Note on sub-catalog 6 to 11: these sub-catalogs list line velocity data. Observations may refer to frequencies other than those for the continuum data. In particular:
\- Col. 25-26: Kuchar $`\&`$ Clark quote continuum data at 4.85 GHz and line data from Reifenstein et al. 1970 and from Wilson et al. 1970 at 5 GHz (H109$`\alpha `$) and from Lockman 1989 at 10 GHz (H85$`\alpha `$, H87$`\alpha `$ and H88$`\alpha `$)
\- Col. 28: Altenhoff et al. 1979 quotes continuum data at 5 GHz while line data are taken from Lockman 1989 at 10 GHz (H85$`\alpha `$, H87$`\alpha `$ and H88$`\alpha `$)
\- Col. 29-33: Caswell $`\&`$ Haynes 1987, Downes et al. 1980, Mezger $`\&`$ Henderson 1967, Reifenstein et al. 1970, Wilson et al. 1970 quote both continuum and line data at 5 GHz (H109$`\alpha `$, H110$`\alpha `$)
\- Col. 34-36-37: Wink et al. 1982 quotes continuum data at 5/15/86 GHz and line data at 8.9/14.7 GHz (H90$`\alpha `$ and H76$`\alpha `$).


text:
# Fermionic topological charge of families of lattice gauge fields

## 1 Continuum setting

Continuum SU($`N`$) gauge fields on $`𝐑^4`$ with finite YM action are pure gauge at infinity: $`A_\mu (x)\varphi (x)_\mu \varphi (x)^1`$ for $`|x|\mathrm{}`$. Such fields have a well-defined topological charge

$`Q:=\text{deg}(\varphi ),`$ (1)
the degree of $`\varphi :S^3\text{SU}(N)`$, where $`S^3`$ is the 3-sphere “at infinity” in $`𝐑^4`$. The topological charge has a fermionic description: by the Index Theorem, $`Q=\text{index}(\text{}^A)`$ where $`\text{}^A`$ is the Dirac operator coupled to $`A`$. The situation is similar for gauge fields on compact manifolds such as $`S^4`$, $`T^4`$, $`\mathrm{}`$

Consider now a family $`A^{(y)}`$ of $`\text{SU}(N)`$ gauge fields on the 4-torus $`T^4`$ parameterized by $`yY`$ (a smooth parameter space) with the property that the gauge fields parameterized by boundary points of $`Y`$ are all gauge equivalent:

$`A^{(y)}=\varphi ^{(y)}A\text{for}yY`$ (2)
where $`\varphi ^{(y)}`$ is a family of gauge transformations parameterized by $`Y`$. Then the family $`A^{(y)}`$ determines a closed submanifold in the orbit space of $`\text{SU}(N)`$ gauge fields on $`T^4`$ and there is a natural notion of topological charge for the family:

$`Q_Y:=\text{deg}(\mathrm{\Phi })`$ (3)
where $`\mathrm{\Phi }:Y\times T^4\text{SU}(N)`$ is given by $`\mathrm{\Phi }(y,x):=\varphi ^{(y)}(x)`$. This families topological charge also has a fermionic description: by the Families Index Theorem of ,

$`Q_Y={\displaystyle _{Y/Y}}\text{ch}(\text{index}\text{}).`$ (4)
Here $`Y/Y`$ denotes $`Y`$ with its boundary collapsed to a single point and $`\text{ch}(\text{index}\text{})`$ is the Chern character of the index bundle of $`\text{}`$ over the gauge orbit space.

We henceforth specialize to the case where $`Y`$ is a $`2p`$-dimensional ball $`B^{2p}`$, $`Y=S^{2p1}`$, then the family $`A^{(y)}`$ corresponds to a $`2p`$-sphere in the orbit space. We denote the families topological charge in this case by $`Q_{2p}`$. Examples of such families can be constructed as follows. Choose a map $`\mathrm{\Phi }:S^{2p1}\times T^4\text{SU}(N)`$ and some gauge field $`A`$, then set

$`A^{(y)}A^{(\theta ,t)}:=t(\varphi _\theta A)`$ (5)
where $`\theta S^{2p1}`$, $`t[0,1]`$ is the radial coordinate in $`B^{2p}`$, and $`\varphi _\theta (x):=\mathrm{\Phi }(\theta ,x)`$. Then $`Q_{2p}=\text{deg}(\mathrm{\Phi })`$ independent of the choice of $`A`$. Maps $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ with nonvanishing degree exist for $`1pN2`$.

Physical significance of the $`Q_{2p}`$’s. The physical significance of the usual $`Q=Q_0`$ is well-known so we concentrate on the other cases. $`Q_2`$ is an obstruction to gauge invariance of the chiral fermion determinant ; this follows from the fact that the degree 2 part of $`\text{ch}(\text{index}\text{})`$ coincides with the Chern character of the determinant line bundle of $`\text{}`$. The general $`Q_{2p}`$’s for $`p>0`$ also have significance as obstructions to the existence of gauge fixings without the Gribov ambiguity : Such a gauge fixing picks out a submanifold $`𝒜_f`$ of the space $`𝒜`$ of gauge fields which intersects each gauge orbit precisely once, thus determining a decomposition

$`𝒜𝒜_f\times 𝒢𝒜/𝒢\times 𝒢`$ (6)
Since $`𝒜`$ is an affine vector space all spheres in $`𝒜`$ are contractible; the decomposition (6) then implies that all spheres in $`𝒜/𝒢`$ and $`𝒢`$ are contractible. In this case the families topological charge $`Q_{2p}`$, which via (4) can be expressed as

$`Q_{2p}={\displaystyle _{𝒮^{2p}}}\text{ch}(\text{index}\text{})`$ (7)
where $`𝒮^{2p}`$ is the $`2p`$-sphere in $`𝒜/𝒢`$ determined by the $`B^{2p}`$-family $`A^{(\theta ,t)}`$, vanishes, since, being an integer, it is unchanged under a smooth contraction of $`𝒮^{2p}`$ to a point in $`𝒜/𝒢`$. Thus, nonvanishing $`Q_{2p}`$ ($`p>0`$) implies nonexistence of a decomposition (6), i.e. nonexistence of a gauge fixing without the Gribov problem.

Remark. The decomposition (6) means that for each $`A𝒜`$ there is a unique $`A_f𝒜_f`$ and $`\varphi 𝒢`$ such that $`A=\varphi A_f`$. For $`\varphi `$ to be unique $`𝒢`$ must act freely on $`𝒜`$. To achieve this we restrict $`𝒢`$ to be the group of gauge transformations satisfying $`\varphi (x_0)=1`$ for some arbitrarily chosen basepoint $`x_0`$ in $`T^4`$. This has the effect of excluding the nontrivial constant gauge transformations. (The same condition was imposed in the families index theory for the Dirac operator in .) Thus our setting is different from the one in Singer’s study of the Gribov problem in . There $`𝒜`$ was taken to consist of the irreducible gauge fields, which are acted freely upon by $`𝒢/𝐙_N`$ ($`𝐙_N`$=the center of $`\text{SU}(N)`$) and the obstructions in that setting are different from the $`Q_{2p}`$’s discussed above. (The obstruction studied by Singer was $`\pi _1(𝒢/𝐙_N)`$.)

## 2 Lattice setting

To begin with the space of lattice gauge fields is

$`𝒰_{\mathrm{initial}}\text{SU}(N)\times \text{SU}(N)\times \mathrm{}\times \text{SU}(N)`$ (8)
(one copy for each lattice link). Topological charge for lattice gauge fields can be defined fermionically as

$`Q:=\text{index}D^U`$ (9)
where $`D^U`$ is the overlap Dirac operator  coupled to the lattice gauge field $`U`$. For this we need to exclude the $`U`$’s for which $`D^U`$ is ill-defined. Let $`𝒰`$ denote the space of lattice gauge fields resulting from excluding this measure zero subspace from $`𝒰_{\mathrm{initial}}`$. A sufficient condition for $`U`$ to be in $`𝒰`$ is that the plaquette variables satisfy $`1U(p)<ϵ`$ for some sufficiently small $`ϵ`$ . Since $`1U(p)=a^2F_{\mu \nu }(x)+O(a^3)`$ the lattice transcript of any smooth continuum field $`A𝒜`$ is guaranteed to lie in $`𝒰`$ when the lattice is sufficiently fine. The lattice $`Q`$ reduces to the continuum $`Q`$ in the classical continuum limit . $`D^U`$ and $`Q`$ have their origins in the overlap formalism .

Let $`𝒞`$ denote the space of lattice spinor fields on $`T^4`$; for simplicity we assume that the fermion is in the fundamental representation of $`\text{SU}(N)`$. $`𝒞`$ has two “chiral” decompositions:

$`𝒞=𝒞_+𝒞_{}\text{and}𝒞=\widehat{𝒞}_+^U\widehat{𝒞}_{}^U`$
defined, respectively, by $`\gamma _5=\pm 1`$ on $`𝒞_\pm `$ and $`\widehat{\gamma }_5^U=\pm 1`$ on $`\widehat{𝒞}_\pm ^U`$ where $`\widehat{\gamma }_5^U=\text{sign}(H^U)`$ ($`H^U`$=the Hermitian Wilson-Dirac operator with suitable negative mass term). It can be shown that

$`\text{index}D^U=\text{dim}\widehat{𝒞}_+^U\text{dim}𝒞_{}`$ (10)
This leads to a natural definition of the index bundle of the overlap Dirac operator :

$`\text{index}D=\widehat{𝒞}_+𝒞_{}`$ (11)
$`\widehat{𝒞}_+=\{\widehat{𝒞}_+^U\}_{U𝒰}`$ is a vector bundle over $`𝒰`$  and in (11) $`𝒞_{}`$ is the trivial bundle over $`𝒰`$ with constant fiber $`𝒞_{}`$. Due to gauge covariance of $`D^U`$ the bundle $`\widehat{𝒞}_+`$, and therefore also $`\text{index}D`$, descend to bundles over the orbit space $`𝒰/𝒢`$.

Consider now a family $`U^{(y)}`$ ($`yY`$) in $`𝒰`$ with the property that the fields parameterized by $`yY`$ all gauge equivalent. It determines a closed submanifold in the orbit space $`𝒰/𝒢`$ and the topological charge of the family can be defined fermionically in analogy with (4):

$`Q_Y:={\displaystyle _{Y/Y}}\text{ch}(\text{index}D)`$
The topological properties of the Chern character guarantee that this is an integer. We now specialize to $`Y=B^{2p}`$, $`Y=S^{2p1}`$ so that $`U^{(y)}U^{(\theta ,t)}`$ with $`U^{(\theta ,1)}=\varphi _\theta U`$. An explicit formula for the families topological charge in this case has been derived in : For $`p>0`$,

$`Q_{2p}=\frac{1}{(2\pi i)^p}(\frac{1}{p!}{\displaystyle _{B^{2p}}}\text{Tr}\left[P^{(\theta ,t)}(dP^{(\theta ,t)})^{2p}\right]`$
$`+\frac{(1)^p}{2}\frac{(p1)!}{(2p1)!}{\displaystyle _{S^{2p1}}}\text{Tr}\left[\widehat{\gamma }_5^U(\varphi _\theta ^1d_\theta \varphi _\theta )^{2p1}\right])`$
$`+2{\displaystyle \underset{x}{}}deg(\varphi (x))`$
Here $`\widehat{\gamma }_5=\widehat{\gamma }_5^{U^{(\theta ,t)}}`$, $`P=\frac{1}{2}(1+\widehat{\gamma }_5)`$, $`d=d_\theta +d_t`$ is the exterior derivative on $`B^{2p}`$, Tr is the trace for linear operators on $`𝒞`$, and $`deg(\varphi (x))`$ is the degree of the map $`S^{2p1}\text{SU(N)}`$, $`\theta \varphi _\theta (x)`$. From this formula one can show the following :

Theorem. The lattice $`Q_{2p}`$ reduces to the continuum $`Q_{2p}`$ in the classical continuum limit.

In light of the remarks below Eq.(9), examples of families $`U^{(y)}`$ in $`𝒰`$ can be obtained as the lattice transcripts of families $`A^{(y)}`$ in $`𝒜`$ when the lattice is sufficiently fine. In particular, specific examples of $`B^{2p}`$-families are obtained as the lattice transcripts of (5). It follows from the Theorem that when $`Q_{2p}`$ for the continuum family is nonvanishing then the lattice $`Q_{2p}`$ is also nonvanishing for the transcripted family, at least when the lattice is sufficiently fine. So lattice families with nonvanishing $`Q_{2p}`$ do exist.

Physical significance of the lattice $`Q_{2p}`$’s. In complete analogy with the continuum situation $`Q_2`$ is an obstruction to gauge invariance of the overlap chiral fermion determinant . However, in contrast to the continuum situation, the lattice $`Q_{2p}`$’s for general $`p>0`$ are not obstructions to the existence of gauge fixings without the Gribov problem. Such gauge fixings do exist on the lattice; examples of these are the maximal tree gauges introduced in . Hence a decomposition

$`𝒰𝒰/𝒢\times 𝒢`$ (12)
does exist on the lattice. (To make the action of $`𝒢`$ on $`𝒰`$ free we are again imposing the condition $`\varphi (x_0)=1`$ on the gauge transformations.) The difference between the continuum and lattice situations is due to the fact that, while all spheres in $`𝒜`$ are contractible, the same is not true for $`𝒰`$. Indeed, by turning around our previous continuum argument we see that, on the lattice, nonvanishing $`Q_{2p}`$ implies noncontractibility of the $`2p`$-sphere $`𝒮^{2p}`$ in $`𝒰/𝒢`$ determined by the $`B^{2p}`$-family $`U^{(\theta ,t)}`$. This in turn implies, via (12), the noncontractibility of a “gauge fixed” $`2p`$-sphere $`𝒮_f^{2p}`$ in $`𝒰`$ arising as the image in $`𝒰`$ of $`𝒮^{2p}\times \{1\}`$ in $`𝒰/𝒢\times 𝒢`$.

Thus we see that the obstructions $`Q_{2p}`$ to gauge fixing without the Gribov problem in the continuum correspond on the lattice to obstructions to the contractibility of certain $`2p`$-spheres in $`𝒰`$. It follows from this and the Theorem above that

$`\pi _{2p}(𝒰)0\text{for}1pN2`$
at least when the lattice is sufficiently fine. This is a direct consequence of excluding the lattice gauge fields for which the fermionic topological charge $`Q=\text{index}D^U`$ is ill-defined. To see this note that, by (8), $`\pi _{2p}(𝒰_{\mathrm{initial}})=0`$ for $`1pN1`$ since the same is true for $`\pi _{2p}(\text{SU}(N))`$. Hence the noncontractible $`2p`$-spheres in $`𝒰`$ are all contractible in $`𝒰_{\mathrm{initial}}`$. For more on all this, including an explicit description of the noncontractible $`2p`$-spheres $`𝒮_f^{2p}`$ in $`𝒰`$, see .

In  it was shown that $`Q_{2p}`$ coincides with the families topological charge $`(Q_{2p})_f:=_{𝒮_f^{2p}}\text{ch}(\text{index}D)`$ associated with the $`2p`$-sphere $`𝒮_f^{2p}`$ in $`𝒰`$. In the $`2p=2`$ case this implies that the obstructions $`Q_2`$ to gauge invariance of the overlap chiral fermion determinant coincide with obstructions $`(Q_2)_f`$ to trivialising the overlap determinant line bundle over 2-sphere $`𝒮_f^2`$ in $`𝒰`$. The situation is the unchanged for more general 2-dimensional families $`U^{(y)}`$ in $`𝒰`$: the closed 2-manifold $`𝒮`$ in $`𝒰/𝒢`$ determined by the family is isomorphic via (12) to a “gauge-fixed” 2-manifold $`𝒮_f`$ in $`𝒰`$ itself, and the families topological charges $`Q_Y`$ and $`(Q_Y)_f`$ coincide. A recent observation in  can be understood in this context. An obstruction to trivialising the overlap determinant line bundle over a certain torus in $`𝒰`$ was described there; it coincides with the obstruction to trivialising the overlap over a torus in $`𝒰/𝒢`$ discussed previously by Neuberger  and this is an example of the situation that we have just discussed.