text:
# Symplectic Symmetry of the Neutrino Mass and the See-Saw Mechanism

## I Introduction

Neutrinos play an essential role in electroweak physics and there is a fascinating interplay between neutrino properties and various astrophysical phenomena. Recent observations of especially the zenith-angle dependence of atmospheric neutrinos , and the solar neutrino flux  provide strong hints of non-zero neutrino masses and oscillations. Atmospheric and solar neutrino experiments along with direct experimental limits on the neutrino mass indicate that neutrino masses are much smaller than the charged-lepton masses. In the Standard Model neutrinos are left-handed. Hence the only Lorentz scalar pairing is the Majorana mass which is a weak isotriplet violating global lepton number conservation. Since the Standard Model has no isotriplet Higgs to couple to such a neutrino pair neutrinos are taken to be massless. Thus the neutrino mass is perhaps the most exquisite hint for physics beyond the Standard Model. In the current wisdom the Standard Model is not a fundamental, but an effective theory. Weak gauge bosons, W and Z, couple at low energies only with left-handed interactions. Neutrinos, being neutral leptons, interact only weakly at low energies. Hence the right-handed components of the neutrinos do not interact, that does not mean that they do not exist. A fundamental understanding of the origin and the magnitude of neutrino mass and mixings is lacking, however the see-saw mechanism  gives a natural scheme for the smallness of the neutrino masses and provides a convenient ansatz for model building. A very nice discussion of massive neutrino scenarios beyond the standard model is given in Reference .

Approaches to the neutrino mass based on symmetries are not fully exploited. Algebraic formulation of a problem could provide a check of the consistency of the formalism and may help to uncover symmetries. In particular it could be beneficial to rewrite the neutrino mass term in the Hamiltonian in terms of the elements of a Lie algebra which also generates the see-saw mechanism. The purpose of the present paper is to explore this possibility to place the neutrino mass matrix and the see-saw mechanism in the same algebraic framework.

One can view the mass term in the Hamiltonian as a generalized pairing problem. For a single neutrino family (four Dirac components) the most general pairing algebra is $`SO(8)`$ (see for example ). We show that for the neutrino mass Lorentz invariance constraints this algebra to be $`Sp(4)`$. We also show that the Pauli-Gürsey transformation is an $`SU(2)_{\mathrm{PG}}`$ rotation which is embedded in the associated $`Sp(4)`$ Lie group. The see-saw Hamiltonian is generated by a particular Pauli-Gürsey transformation. The mass Hamiltonian sits in the $`Sp(4)/SU(2)_{\mathrm{PG}}\times U(1)`$ coset where the $`U(1)`$ is a chirality transformation.

In the next section we introduce the $`Sp(4)`$ algebra for a single neutrino flavor and write the mass Hamiltonian in terms of its generators. In Section 3 we show that the Pauli-Gürsey transformation belongs to the associated group and obtain the see-saw mechanism as a particular Pauli-Gürsey transformation. We also discuss how the algebraic structure generalizes for the case of many flavors of neutrinos. Finally a brief discussion of our results conclude the paper.

## II The Algebraic Structure of the Neutrino Mass Matrix

We shall use the chiral representation of Dirac matrices, in which

$$\stackrel{}{\gamma }=\left(\begin{array}{cc}0& \stackrel{}{\sigma }\\ & \\ \stackrel{}{\sigma }& 0\end{array}\right),\gamma _5=\left(\begin{array}{cc}1& 0\\ & \\ 0& 1\end{array}\right),\gamma _0=\left(\begin{array}{cc}0& 1\\ & \\ 1& 0\end{array}\right)$$
(1)
where the matrices $`\stackrel{}{\sigma }`$ are the usual $`2\times 2`$ Pauli matrices. Since we want to introduce charges we will work with the Hamiltonians instead of Hamiltonian densities. Introducing the left-and right-handed fields

$$\psi _L=\frac{1}{2}(1\gamma _5)\psi ,\psi _R=\frac{1}{2}(1+\gamma _5)\psi $$
(2)
the Dirac-mass term in the Hamiltonian can be written as

$$H_m^D=m_Dd^3x(\overline{\psi }_L\psi _R+h.c)$$
(3)
and the most general Majorana mass term as

$$H_m^M=H_m^L+H_m^R=\frac{1}{2}m_Ld^3x(\overline{\psi }_L\psi _L^c+h.c)+\frac{1}{2}m_Rd^3x(\overline{\psi }_R\psi _R^c+h.c).$$
(4)
In these equations $`m_D`$, $`m_L`$, and $`m_R`$ are the Dirac, left-handed and right-handed Majorana masses and the charge conjugation of $`\psi `$ field is defined by

$$\psi ^C=C\overline{\psi }^T$$
(5)
where $`C`$ is the charge conjugation matrix. In the chiral representation it is given by

$$C=\left(\begin{array}{cc}i\sigma _2& 0\\ & \\ o& i\sigma _2\end{array}\right).$$
(6)
Introducing the charges

$`D_+`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle d^3x(\overline{\psi }_L\psi _R)}`$ (8)
$`D_{}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle d^3x(\overline{\psi }_R\psi _L)}=D_+^{}`$ (9)
the canonical equal-time anti-commutation relations between the fermion fields lead to

$$[D_+,D_{}]=2D_0$$
(10)
where $`D_0`$ is defined as

$$D_0=\frac{1}{2}d^3x(\psi _L^{}\psi _L\psi _R^{}\psi _R).$$
(11)
We see that $`D_+`$, $`D_{}`$ and $`D_0`$ satisfy $`SU(2)`$ commutation relations:

$$[D_+,D_{}]=2D_0,[D_0,D_+]=D_+,[D_0,D_{}]=D_{}.$$
(12)
Similarly introducing the left-handed

$`L_+`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}{\displaystyle d^3x(\overline{\psi }_L\psi _L^c)}`$ (14)
$`L_{}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}{\displaystyle d^3x(\overline{\psi _L^c}\psi _L)}=L_+^{}`$ (15)
$`L_0`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}{\displaystyle d^3x(\psi _L^{}\psi _L\psi _L\psi _L^{})}`$ (16)
and the right-handed charges

$`R_+`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}{\displaystyle d^3x(\overline{\psi _R^c}\psi _R)}`$ (18)
$`R_{}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}{\displaystyle d^3x(\overline{\psi }_R\psi _R^c)}=R_+^{}`$ (19)
$`R_0`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}{\displaystyle d^3x(\psi _R\psi _R^{}\psi _R^{}\psi _R)}`$ (20)
one can see that they also satisfy $`SU(2)`$ algebra structure:

$$[L_+,L_{}]=2L_0,[L_0,L_+]=L_+,[L_0,L_{}]=L_{}$$
(21)
$$[R_+,R_{}]=2R_0,[R_0,R_+]=R_+,[R_0,R_{}]=R_{}$$
(22)
Also note that $`D_0L_0+R_0`$.

It is easy to show that the $`SU(2)`$ algebras generated by the left- and right-handed charges commute:

$$[L_{,+,0},R_{,+,0}]=0.$$
(23)
Calculating all the commutation relations between $`D`$’s, $`L`$’s and $`R`$’s to find a closed algebra structure provides a new set of generators:

$`[D_+,L_0]`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}D_+,`$ (25)
$`[D_+,L_+]`$ $`=`$ $`0,`$ (26)
$`[D_+,L_{}]`$ $`=`$ $`A_+,`$ (27)
$`[D_+,R_0]`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}D_+,`$ (28)
$`[D_+,R_+]`$ $`=`$ $`0,`$ (29)
$`[D_+,R_{}]`$ $`=`$ $`A_{},`$ (30)
$`[D_{},L_0]`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}D_{},`$ (31)
$`[D_{},L_+]`$ $`=`$ $`A_{},`$ (32)
$`[D_{},L_{}]`$ $`=`$ $`0,`$ (33)
$`[D_{},R_0]`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}D_{},`$ (34)
$`[D_{},R_+]`$ $`=`$ $`A_+,`$ (35)
$`[D_{},R_{}]`$ $`=`$ $`0,`$ (36)
where the additional generators are

$`A_+={\displaystyle d^3x\left[\psi _L^TC\gamma _0\psi _R\right]},`$ (38)
$`A_{}={\displaystyle d^3x\left[\psi _R^{}\gamma _0C(\psi _L^{})^T\right]}.`$ (39)
The commutation relations between them give another SU(2) algebra

$$[A_+,A_{}]=2(R_0L_0)2A_0,[A_+,A_0]=A_+,[A_{},A_0]=A_{}.$$
(40)
Note that $`A_0`$ is proportional to the neutrino number operator. The commutation relations between $`A_+`$ and all the other generators

$$[A_+,D_+]=2R_+,,[A_+,D_{}]=2L_{},$$
(41)
$$[A_+,L_0]=\frac{1}{2}A_+,,[A_+,L_+]=D_+,[A_+,L_{}]=0,$$
(42)
$$[A_+,R_0]=\frac{1}{2}A_+,,[A_+,R_+]=0,,[A_+,R_{}]=D_{}$$
(43)
along with the Hermitian conjugates of the commutators in Eqs. (41), (42), and (43) close the algebra: the ten independent generators; $`D_+`$, $`D_{}`$, $`L_+`$, $`L_{}`$, $`L_0`$, $`R_+`$, $`R_{}`$, $`R_0`$, $`A_+`$, and $`A_{}`$ form a Lie algebra, the symplectic algebra $`Sp(4)`$.

In terms of these generators the most general mass term of the Hamiltonian can be written as

$$H_m=m_D(D_++D_{})+m_L(L_++L_{})+m_R(R_++R_{}).$$
(44)
In writing Eq.(44) we ignored the phases of the masses. These can easily be incorporated as e.g. $`m_L(e^{i\chi }L_++L_{}e^{i\chi })`$.

One can write down a number of 4-dimensional matrix realizations of the Sp(4) algebra. Here we present two of them. The first one can be expressed using the $`2\times 2`$ Pauli matrices as :

$$D_0=\frac{1}{2}\left(\begin{array}{cc}\sigma _3& 0\\ & \\ 0& \sigma _3\end{array}\right),D_+=\frac{1}{2}\left(\begin{array}{cc}0& \sigma _+\\ & \\ \sigma _+& 0\end{array}\right),D_{}=\frac{1}{2}\left(\begin{array}{cc}0& \sigma _{}\\ & \\ \sigma _{}& 0\end{array}\right),$$
(45)
$$\stackrel{}{L}=\frac{1}{2}\left(\begin{array}{cc}0& 0\\ & \\ 0& \stackrel{}{\sigma }\end{array}\right),\stackrel{}{R}=\frac{1}{2}\left(\begin{array}{cc}\stackrel{}{\sigma }& 0\\ & \\ 0& 0\end{array}\right),$$
(46)
$$A_+=\frac{1}{2}\left(\begin{array}{cc}0& \sigma _3+1\\ & \\ \sigma _31& 0\end{array}\right),A_{}=\frac{1}{2}\left(\begin{array}{cc}0& \sigma _31\\ & \\ \sigma _3+1& 0\end{array}\right).$$
(47)
In these expressions $`1`$ is the $`2\times 2`$ unit matrix. The second matrix realization is given as

$$D_0=\frac{1}{2}\left(\begin{array}{cc}1& 0\\ & \\ 0& 1\end{array}\right),D_+=\left(\begin{array}{cc}0& \sigma _1\\ & \\ 0& 0\end{array}\right),D_{}=\left(\begin{array}{cc}0& 0\\ & \\ \sigma _1& 0\end{array}\right);$$
(48)
$$L_0=\frac{1}{4}\left(\begin{array}{cc}\sigma _3+1& 0\\ & \\ 0& \sigma _31\end{array}\right),L_+=\frac{1}{2}\left(\begin{array}{cc}0& \sigma _3+1\\ & \\ 0& 0\end{array}\right),L_{}=\frac{1}{2}\left(\begin{array}{cc}0& 0\\ & \\ \sigma _3+1& 0\end{array}\right),$$
(49)
$$R_0=\frac{1}{4}\left(\begin{array}{cc}\sigma _3+1& 0\\ & \\ 0& \sigma _31\end{array}\right),R_+=\frac{1}{2}\left(\begin{array}{cc}0& \sigma _3+1\\ & \\ 0& 0\end{array}\right),R_{}=\frac{1}{2}\left(\begin{array}{cc}0& 0\\ & \\ \sigma _3+1& 0\end{array}\right),$$
(50)
$$A_+=\frac{1}{2}\left(\begin{array}{cc}\sigma _{}& 0\\ & \\ 0& \sigma _+\end{array}\right),A_{}=\frac{1}{2}\left(\begin{array}{cc}\sigma _+& 0\\ & \\ 0& \sigma _{}\end{array}\right).$$
(51)
Since there is only one four-dimensional representation of $`Sp(4)`$ these two matrix realizations can be transformed into one another by the unitary transformation

$$U=\left(\begin{array}{cccc}0& 0\hfill & 0& \hfill 1\\ & & & \\ 0& 1\hfill & 0& \hfill 0\\ & & & \\ 0& 0\hfill & 1& \hfill 0\\ & & & \\ 1& 0\hfill & 0& \hfill 0\end{array}\right).$$
(52)
Using the representation given in Eqs. (48), (49), (50), and (51) one can also write $`H_m`$ of Eq. (44) in matrix form

$$H_m=\left(\begin{array}{cccc}0& 0\hfill & m_L& \hfill m_D\\ & & & \\ 0& 0\hfill & m_D& \hfill m_R\\ & & & \\ m_L& m_D\hfill & 0& \hfill 0\\ & & & \\ m_D& m_R\hfill & 0& \hfill 0\end{array}\right).$$
(53)
Most discussions of the neutrino mass matrix start with Eq. (53) and its generalization to many flavors (see, for example Ref. . A careful discussion which pays particular attention to the phases is given in Ref. ).

$`Sp(4)`$ is isomorphic to $`Spin(5)`$ which is the universal covering group of $`SO(5)`$. Representations of $`Spin(5)`$ can be considered as spinor representations of $`SO(5)`$. It may be interesting to point out that these spinor representations can be realized using quaternions or, equivalently, using Pauli matrices. The four dimensional fundamental representation of $`Sp(4)`$ is explicitly given by Eqs. (48) through (51). To exhibit the $`SU(2)`$-doublet structure of this representation we rewrite these equations as

$$D_\pm =\frac{1}{2}\sigma _1\sigma _\pm ,$$
(54)
$$\stackrel{}{L}=\frac{1}{4}(1+\sigma _3)\stackrel{}{\sigma },$$
(55)
$$\stackrel{}{R}=\frac{1}{4}(1\sigma _3)\stackrel{}{\sigma },$$
(56)
and

$$A_\pm =\left[\sigma _{}\frac{1}{4}(1+\sigma _3)\right]\left[\sigma _\pm \frac{1}{4}(\sigma _31)\right].$$
(57)
In these equations the notation $`A\sigma _1`$, etc. stands for the $`4\times 4`$ block matrix where the elements of $`\sigma _1`$ are replaced by the $`2\times 2`$ matrix $`A`$. Full details and the representation theory of spinor representations is covered in standard texts (see for example ).

## III The Pauli-Gürsey transformation and the see-saw mechanism

In 1957, W. Pauli introduced  a 3-parameter group which relates a Dirac spinor to its charge-conjugation. Later F. Gürsey showed  that this group can be extended to particles with mass and charge. The Pauli-Gürsey transformation is given by the 3-parameter transformation

$$\psi \psi ^{}=a\psi +b\gamma _5\psi ^c$$
(58)
where the parameters $`a`$ and $`b`$ satisfy the unitarity condition

$$|a|^2+|b|^2=1.$$
(59)
In this section we elaborate on the relationship between the Pauli-Gürsey transformation and the neutrino mass matrix.

As the discussion in the previous section indicates the physical meaning of the $`SU(2)`$ algebras generated by the $`D`$’s, $`L`$’s, and $`R`$’s is clear. They generate the neutrino mass matrix. To illustrate the role of the $`SU(2)`$ algebra spanned by $`A_\pm `$ and $`A_0`$ let us consider a general element of the associated $`SU(2)`$ group

$$\widehat{U}=e^{\tau ^{}A_{}}e^{log(1+|\tau |^2)A_0}e^{\tau A_+}e^{i\phi A_0},$$
(60)
where $`\tau `$ and $`\phi `$ are arbitrary complex and real numbers respectively. Under this $`SU(2)`$ rotation the fermion field transforms into

$$\psi \psi ^{}=\widehat{U}\psi \widehat{U}^{}=\frac{e^{i\phi /2}}{\sqrt{1+|\tau |^2}}[\psi \tau ^{}\gamma _5\psi ^c].$$
(61)
This is a Pauli-Gürsey transformation with the parameters

$`a={\displaystyle \frac{e^{i\phi /2}}{\sqrt{1+|\tau |^2}}},b={\displaystyle \frac{\tau ^{}e^{i\phi /2}}{\sqrt{1+|\tau |^2}}}.`$ (62)
Note that if the mass term is considered a pairing interaction the Pauli-Gürsey transformation can be viewed as the associated Bogoliubov transformation. In light of Eqs. (61) and (62) from now on we designate the $`SU(2)`$ algebra spanned by $`A_\pm `$ and $`A_0`$ as $`SU(2)_{\mathrm{PG}}`$. It is also easy to show that the $`U(1)`$ algebra spanned by $`D_0`$ commutes with $`SU(2)_{\mathrm{PG}}`$.

At this point the role of various components of the $`Sp(4)`$ algebra is identified. It is easy to show that

$$D_0=\frac{1}{2}d^3x(\psi ^{}\gamma _5\psi )$$
(63)
Hence the $`U(1)_\chi `$ algebra spanned by $`D_0`$ is a chirality transformation, the $`SU(2)_{\mathrm{PG}}`$ generates the Pauli-Gürsey transformation and the most general neutrino mass Hamiltonian sits in the $`Sp(4)/SU(2)_{\mathrm{PG}}\times U(1)_\chi `$ coset. It turns out that the $`SU(2)_{\mathrm{PG}}`$ has another interesting function, namely that it generates the see-saw mechanism. To illustrate this we first rewrite Eq. (44) in the form

$`H_m=m_D(D_++D_{})`$ $`+`$ $`\left({\displaystyle \frac{m_L+m_R}{2}}\right)\left[(L_++L_{})+(R_++R_{})\right]`$ (64)
$`+`$ $`\left({\displaystyle \frac{m_Lm_R}{2}}\right)\left[(L_++L_{})(R_++R_{})\right].`$ (65)
One can easily show that under an $`SU(2)_{\mathrm{PG}}`$ rotation one gets

$$L_+L_+^{}=\frac{e^{i\phi }}{1+|\tau |^2}\left[L_++\tau D_++\tau ^2R_+\right];$$
(66)
$$R_+R_+^{}=\frac{e^{i\phi }}{1+|\tau |^2}\left[R_+\tau ^{}D_++(\tau ^{})^2L_+\right];$$
(67)
$$D_+D_+^{}=\frac{1}{1+|\tau |^2}\left[(1|\tau |^2)D_++2\tau R_+2\tau ^{}L_+\right].$$
(68)
From Eqs. (66) and (67) it follows that under an $`SU(2)_{\mathrm{PG}}`$ rotation one has

$$\left[(L_++L_{})+(R_++R_{})\right]\left[(L_+^{}+L_{}^{})+(R_+^{}+R_{}^{})\right]=\left[(L_++L_{})+(R_++R_{})\right]$$
(69)
and

$`[(L_++L_{})`$ $``$ $`(R_++R_{})][(L_+^{}+L_{}^{})(R_+^{}+R_{}^{})]`$ (70)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{1+\tau ^2}}\left[(1\tau ^2)\left((L_++L_{})(R_++R_{})\right)+2\tau \left(D_++D_{}\right)\right].`$ (71)
In writing down Eqs. (69) and (70) we took $`\phi =0`$ and $`\tau `$ to be real assuming the masses in Eq. (64) have no phases. If phases are included one should restore $`\phi `$ and a complex $`\tau `$.

Under the $`SU(2)_{\mathrm{PG}}`$ rotation the mass Hamiltonian of Eq. (64) transforms into

$`H_mH_m^{}`$ $`=`$ $`\widehat{U}H_m\widehat{U}^{}=m_D(D_+^{}+D_{}^{})+\left({\displaystyle \frac{m_L+m_R}{2}}\right)\left[(L_+^{}+L_{}^{})+(R_+^{}+R_{}^{})\right]`$ (72)
$`+`$ $`\left({\displaystyle \frac{m_Lm_R}{2}}\right)\left[(L_+^{}+L_{}^{})(R_+^{}+R_{}^{})\right]`$ (73)
$`=`$ $`\left({\displaystyle \frac{m_L+m_R}{2}}\right)\left[(L_++L_{})+(R_++R_{})\right]`$ (74)
$`+`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{1+\tau ^2}}\left[m_D(1\tau ^2)+\left(m_Lm_R\right)\tau \right](D_++D_{})`$ (75)
$`+`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{1+\tau ^2}}\left[2m_D\tau +\left({\displaystyle \frac{m_Lm_R}{2}}\right)(1\tau ^2)\right]\left[(L_++L_{})(R_++R_{})\right]`$ (76)
One can eliminate various terms from Eq. (72) by a suitable choice of $`\tau `$. For example, if one would like to eliminate the Dirac mass term $`(D_++D_{})`$ one can choose $`\tau `$ to make its coefficient zero. Introducing the angle $`\delta `$

$$\tau =\mathrm{tan}\delta ,$$
(77)
one finds that the choice

$$\mathrm{tan}2\delta =\frac{2m_D}{(m_Lm_R)},,$$
(78)
achieves this goal. The choice in Eq. (78) corresponds to:

$$\mathrm{cos}2\delta =\frac{(m_Lm_R)}{[4m_D^2+(m_Lm_R)^2]^{1/2}},\mathrm{sin}2\delta =\frac{2m_D}{[4m_D^2+(m_Lm_R)^2]^{1/2}},$$
(79)
Note that this solution exists even in the limiting case of $`m_L=m_R`$. Substituting Eq. (79) into Eq. (72) one obtains

$`H_mH_m^{}`$ $`=`$ $`\widehat{U}H_m\widehat{U}^{}=\left({\displaystyle \frac{m_L+m_R}{2}}\right)\left[(L_++L_{})+(R_++R_{})\right]`$ (80)
$``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\left[4m_D^2+\left(m_Lm_R\right)^2\right]^{1/2}\left[(L_++L_{})(R_++R_{})\right].`$ (81)
Making the choice $`m_L=0`$ and $`m_Rm_D`$ one obtains the standard see-saw result

$$H_m^{}m_R(R_++R_{})\frac{m_D^2}{m_R}(L_++L_{}).$$
(82)
So far the discussion was for a single neutrino flavor. For three neutrino flavors one can introduce three commuting copies of the $`Sp(4)`$ algebra and the similar arguments follow. It is possible to introduce a single $`Sp(4)`$ algebra for three flavors if the individual masses of the mass eigenstates are equal up to phases. This case seems to be too restrictive for model building as it is at variance with the recent observations.

## IV Conclusions

We showed that the neutrino mass problem can be formulated algebraically. The algebra is Sp(4). A subgroup of this algebra generates the see-saw mechanism and the neutrino mass Hamiltonian sits in the leftover coset space. We should emphasize that even though in writing down the symplectic algebra we utilized a framework which is symmetric under the exchange of the left- and right-handed fields, the algebraic basis we introduced does not specify the values of $`m_L`$ and $`m_R`$. In particular the value $`m_L=0`$ is not excluded. Note that in the special case of $`m_L=m_R`$ and $`m_D=0`$, Eq. (69) indicates that a general Pauli-Gürsey transformation given in Eq. (60) leaves the mass-term invariant. Indeed in this limit only the diagonal $`SU(2)_{L+R}`$ subgroup of $`SU(2)_L\times SU(2)_R`$ (spanned by the $`L`$’s and $`R`$’s respectively) is sufficient to describe the mass Hamiltonian. This $`SU(2)_{L+R}`$ commutes with $`SU(2)_{PG}`$.

Our analysis here concerns the neutrino mass, not the mixing matrix. Recent observations of the atmospheric neutrinos  very strongly suggest that muon neutrino maximally mixes with another neutrino. In this case one can show that one of the mass eigenstates decouples from the problem reducing the dimension of flavor space by one , which suggests the existence of an underlying symmetry. It would be interesting to see if the $`Sp(4)`$ or a higher symmetry could make a statement about the mixing matrix. Work along this direction is currently in progress.

## ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

This work was supported in part by the U.S. National Science Foundation Grant No. PHY-9605140 at the University of Wisconsin, and in part by the University of Wisconsin Research Committee with funds granted by the Wisconsin Alumni Research Foundation. A.B.B. acknowledges the support of the Alexander von Humboldt-Stiftung. The work of N.Ö was in part supported by the Scientific and Technical Research Council of Turkey (TUBITAK) under the project No. TBAG-1247. A.B.B. thanks to the Max-Planck-Institut für Kernphysik for the very kind hospitality.


format: text

text:
# WR 146 - Observing the OB-type companion

## 1 Introduction

Wolf-Rayet stars are surrounded by dense stellar winds giving rise to free-free emission extending from IR to radio wavelengths. Typically, this emission is characterised by a power-law spectrum of the form $`S_\nu \nu ^\alpha `$, with values of the spectral index $`\alpha +0.7+0.8`$, and radio brightness temperatures $`10^4`$ K. A small number of WR stars have radio emission that exhibits quite different properties: negative spectral indices and brightness temperatures $`10^6`$ K or higher, properties that are characteristic of non-thermal emission. WR 146 is a member of this group, which includes WR 125, WR 140 and WR 147.

The radio emission from WR 146 was first resolved in high resolution observations with MERLIN (Dougherty et al. 1996, hereafter Paper I). These 5-GHz observations revealed two components, N5 and S5, separated by $`120`$ milli-arcseconds (mas). The flux of S5 was consistent with that estimated from extrapolation of the IR-millimetre spectrum arising from the free-free emitting envelope around the WR star. The brightness temperature of N5 ($`10^6`$K) identified the nature of the emission from this component as non-thermal. An optical spectrum showed evidence for absorption lines at H$`\delta `$ and H$`\gamma `$, which we attributed to an early-type companion to the WR star. This led us to hypothesize in Paper I that the non-thermal emission arose from a population of relativistic electrons, accelerated in a wind-wind collision region where the wind of the WR star and the companion interacted (e.g. Eichler & Usov 1993). To be consistent with such a model, we suggested the companion lay at the same position angle as N5 from S5, but slightly further away from the WR star.

The presence of a companion was confirmed in optical imaging with the Hubble Space Telescope (HST) by Niemela et al. (1998). They observed two stars, WR146A and B (hereafter SO and NO respectively), at the same position angle as the radio sources but separated by $`168`$ mas. Under the assumption that the southern sources in both the HST and MERLIN images are coincident, these observations place the non-thermal source between the two stellar images, strongly supporting wind-wind collision as the origin of the non-thermal emission. Its position relative to the two stellar components ($`120`$ mas from SO and $``$ 48 mas from NO) is where the dynamical pressure of the two stellar winds is balanced. This indicates that the momentum of SO’s stellar wind is $``$ 0.1 times that of NO. With the wind velocity of the WC star in WR 146 ($``$ 2900 km s-1, Eenens & Williams 1994) being greater than that of a typical OB star, and the expectation that the mass-loss rate of a WR star would be greater than that of an OB star, this strongly supports the identification of SO with the WC6 star in Paper I and identifies NO with an OB companion having a lesser wind momentum. The momentum ratio lead Niemela et al. to infer that the wind momentum of the companion was more appropriate to a star of early O or Of type than a late O-type main-sequence star. Taking account of the photometry, they suggested an O6-O5 V-III spectral type for the companion.

The photometry by Niemela et al. showed the two stars to be equally bright in B but that SO was redder than NO in (B–V) and (U–B). The (near-zero) magnitude difference between the two blue images falls between two very different estimates of the WR:O light ratio deduced from spectra of WR 146 which included both stars.

On the one hand, in Paper I, we measured equivalent widths of H$`\delta `$ and H$`\gamma `$ in our blue spectrum of WR 146 to be $`W_\lambda `$0.9Å. Comparison of these with those ($`2.5`$Å) typical of mid-to-late O stars in the Walborn & Fitzpatrick (1990) atlas indicated that the O-star spectrum was diluted and suggested that the continuum of the WC star was twice as bright as that of the O companion in the blue. On the other hand, Willis et al. (1997) used a spectrum of lower resolution but longer wavelength coverage than presented in Paper I to determine the WR:O light ratio from comparison of the equivalent widths of the emission lines with those of two single WC6 stars. They found that the O star was brighter than the WC star, reporting a continuum light ratio (WR:O) of 1:(2$`\pm `$1).

The discrepancy in the light ratios of the WC6 and O components derived from the dilution of O star absorption lines and WC6 star emission lines is significant and probably too great to arise purely from the observational uncertainties. Leaving aside the question of whether one of the stars varied between the two observations, the principal uncertainties in two spectroscopic light-ratio determinations come from whether the intrinsic line strengths of the components are indeed equal to those of the comparisons adopted. The discrepancy could be reduced if the equivalent widths of H$`\delta `$ and H$`\gamma `$ in the O star were weaker than the 2.5Å adopted or if the emission lines in the WC6 component were weaker than those of other WC6 stars. Both possibilities are plausible.

The strengths of the emission lines in WR 146 may well be atypical for its WC6 type: both Eenens & Williams (1992) and Willis et al. found anomalously low C/He abundances for this star. On the other hand, the strengths of H$`\gamma `$ and H$`\delta `$ in O-type stars do depend on spectral type and luminosity class, which are not known directly for the companion in WR 146. We note that the “O8.5V” adopted by Willis et al. comes not from the star’s spectral lines but from its luminosity inferred from that of the WC6 star and the continuum light ratio. We therefore re-observed the blue spectrum of WR 146 with the William Herschel Telescope in an attempt to determine the spectral type and, hopefully, luminosity of the early-type companion to the WR star. These data, together with the photometry by Niemela et al., will give us a better idea of the intrinsic properties of the companion for comparison with the radio observations.

We also re-observed WR 146 at radio wavelengths, extending the frequency coverage of Paper I, to search for the wind flux from the companion, and study the characteristics of the two previously observed radio components with the aim of furthering our understanding of the colliding wind phenomenon.

## 2 Radio Wavelength Study

### 2.1 The observations

Multi-frequency observations of WR 146 at 1.4, 5, 8.4, and 22 GHz were taken on 1996 October 26 using the A-configuration of the NRAO Very Large Array (VLA). Observations of the nearby radio-bright quasar 2005+403 were interleaved with the observations of the target source for phase-referenced calibration of the antennae gains. The absolute flux scale was determined by observation of 3C48, assumed to have fluxes of 15.970, 5.516, 3.226 and 1.174 Jy at 1.4, 5, 8.4, and 22 GHz respectively.

In addition, archival data from MERLIN at 5 GHz have been analysed. A 4-hour on-source observation at 5 GHz was obtained with MERLIN on 1992 December 26, along with frequent observations of the phase calibration source 2005+403. Following the standard procedure for calibrating MERLIN 5-GHz data, the flux scale was established by observation of 3C286 with an assumed total flux of 7.309Jy (7.020 Jy on the MK2-Tabley baseline) and the unresolved source 0552+398, which had a derived “bootstrap” flux of 5.786 Jy. The bootstrap fluxes for 2005+403 are given in Table LABEL:tab:fluxes.

It is possible to check the accuracy of the derived flux scales in the 5- and 8.4-GHz observations. Comparison of the “bootstrap” fluxes of 2005+403 at these frequencies to those given in the University of Michigan Radio Astronomy Observatory (UMRAO) flux database shows that, where closely contemporaneous observations are available, the agreement with UMRAO fluxes at these frequencies is within $`1\%`$. Given the excellent agreement at these two frequencies, it is reasonable to assume that the flux scales at the other observed frequencies are good.

Aside from the initial amplitude calibration of the MERLIN observations, the calibration and subsequent imaging of the data were carried out using the NRAO AIPS software package. The complex antennae gains were initially derived for 2005+403 and then interpolated (phase-referenced) to the observations of WR 146. In addition, several iterations of phase-only self-calibration were used to refine the antennae gains during the MERLIN observations of WR 146 to improve the dynamic range of the final synthesized images.

At 1.5 and 4.9 GHz the VLA data reveal an unresolved source, whereas at 8.4 GHz the radio emission is marginally resolved. However, WR 146 is well resolved into a double radio source at 22 GHz. The final synthesized 22-GHz image is shown in Fig. 2. We identify the northern and southern components as N22 and S22. The visibility data suggest both these components are resolved (Figure 3). Gaussian model fits to the visibilities give the diameter of the radio emitting regions as $`48\pm 11`$ and $`78\pm 19`$ mas respectively (see Paper I for a description of the method). The large relative uncertainty in these sizes is a direct consequence of the high rms uncertainty per visibility at 22 GHz. The fluxes from the VLA observations were determined by Gaussian source fitting using the AIPS routine JMFIT. The measured fluxes are given in Table LABEL:tab:fluxes.

The final synthesized MERLIN image at 5 GHz is shown in Fig 1. The image reveals two components of emission, identified as N5 and S5. In the MERLIN observation, the flux and size of component N5 were determined by Gaussian model fitting of the visibility data. The derived diameter for N5 is $`42\pm 1`$ mas. Gaussian fitting to the image data were used for the source parameters of S given in Table 1.

Qualitatively, the 1992 MERLIN image is consistent with the 5-GHz observation from 1995 April 29 (Paper I) though there is some evidence that N5 may have decreased in flux by $`3`$ mJy between 1992 and 1995. The flux of S5 appears to have decreased between the two epochs. However, the difference is only $`2\sigma `$, much less than the $`5\sigma `$ threshold typically adopted as evidence for variation. Therefore, we adopt the mean value of $`2.0\pm 0.2`$ mJy for the flux of S5. Variations in the total 5-GHz emission from WR 146 have been observed using the WSRT over the last decade that are attributed to variations in the non-thermal component (Setia-Gunawan et al. 2000). Both our MERLIN 5-GHz total flux values are consistent with the WSRT observations. Variability could account for the slightly higher 5-GHz flux at the epoch of the VLA observations.

The positions of the components observed at 5 GHz and 22 GHz are quoted in Table LABEL:tab:positions. The absolute position of the northern component in the various observations was deduced from the phase-reference only calibrated images. Absolute position information is lost during the self-calibration process, though the relative position is preserved. These were deduced from the images shown in Fig. 1 and Fig. 2.

### 2.2 Identifying the radio components

The nominal resolution of A-configuration at 22-GHz observations is very similar to that of MERLIN at 5 GHz, allowing direct comparison of these data. At 22 GHz, the VLA observations reveal two components N22 and S22, very similar in appearance to the MERLIN 5-GHz data. However, the relative positions of the two 22-GHz components show them to be significantly further apart than those from the MERLIN 5-GHz data, leading to the question of whether the 22-GHz sources are the same as those observed at 5 GHz.

The brightness temperatures of N22, S22 and S5 are $`1.6\times 10^4`$ K, $`5000`$ K and $`4000`$ K respectively, all consistent with an origin in a photo-ionized circumstellar envelope where the photo-ionization equilibrium temperature is typically $`10^4`$ K. In contrast, this is about two orders of magnitude lower than the brightness temperature of $`1.3\times 10^6`$ K for N5, which clearly indicates a non-thermal origin.

The separation of S22 and N22 ($`162\pm 8`$ at a position angle of $`22\pm 4^{}`$) is very close to that ($`168\pm 31`$ mas at position angle $`21\pm 4^{}`$) of the optical components (NO and SO) observed with the HST. There is no evidence of intrinsic proper motion in the source at 22 GHz in recent (1999) observations of the source (A. Fink, private communication). The coincidence of the optical and 22-GHz positions, the lack of evidence of intrinsic proper motion, and the thermal nature of the emission from the two 22-GHz components leads us to conclude that the 22-GHz components are the stellar winds associated with the two stellar components imaged with the HST by Niemela et al. (1988). This is the first time that the stellar wind of the companion in a WR binary has been spatially resolved.

In Paper I we concluded that S5 was the thermal emission from the WR-star wind. Indeed, if we take the mean flux value for S5 from our two epochs of MERLIN observations, the spectral index between 22 and 5 GHz for the southern component is $`+0.82\pm 0.14`$, consistent with those observed in the stellar winds of other WC-type WR stars (e.g. Williams 1996). We estimate the diameter of S5 to be $`190`$ mas from the diameter of the S22, since angular size $`\nu ^{0.6}`$ for $`\alpha 0.8`$. This is approximately four times larger than that given in Paper I. However, we feel the diameter presented here is a more reliable estimate.

Additionally, in Paper 1 we identified N5 as non-thermal emission from a wind-wind collision region. If we overlay the 22-GHz and 5-GHz data assuming two southern components originate in the WR star wind (see Figure 4) we can see that the relative separation of the components supports such a model, where the wind-collision region must fall between the two stars.

### 2.3 Wind parameters for both stellar components

For a steady state, smooth, fully ionized stellar wind having a radial $`r^2`$ ion density distribution, the free-free radio flux $`S_\nu `$ is related to the stellar-wind density i.e. $`\dot{M}/v`$ by

$$S_\nu =2.32\times 10^4(\gamma g_{\nu ,T_e}\nu )^{\frac{2}{3}}\left(\frac{\dot{M}Z}{\mu v}\right)^{\frac{4}{3}}d^2\mathrm{mJy},$$
(1)
where $`\nu `$ is the frequency in Hz, $`d`$ is the distance in kpc, $`\dot{M}`$ is the mass-loss rate in M y-1, $`v`$ the terminal velocity of the wind in km s-1; $`\gamma `$, $`Z`$, $`\mu `$ and $`g_{\nu ,T_e}`$ are respectively, the number of electrons per ion, the mean charge per ion, the mean atomic weight and the Gaunt free-free factor, a function of electron temperature and frequency. It follows from (1) that

$$\frac{\dot{M}}{v}\left(\frac{\mu ^2}{Z^2g_{\nu ,T_e}\gamma }\right)^{\frac{1}{2}}S^{\frac{3}{4}}.$$
(2)
Thus, the measurement of radio emission from the two stellar wind components in the WR 146 system leads to the density ratio of the two winds. If the stellar winds are clumped rather than smooth, we can allow for this by replacing $`\dot{M}`$ in the above with $`(\dot{M}/\sqrt{f})`$, where $`f`$ is the wind filling factor, assumed to be constant over the radio-emitting region.

In the case of the collision of two spherical winds at terminal velocity, the contact discontinuity between the two winds intersects the line of centres between the stars at the point of momentum balance. If the projected separation of the WR and OB star is $`D\mathrm{cos}i`$, and that of the OB companion from the non-thermal region is $`r_{\mathrm{OB}}\mathrm{cos}i`$, we can then write

$$r_{\mathrm{OB}}/D=\frac{\eta ^{\frac{1}{2}}}{1+\eta ^{\frac{1}{2}}},$$
(3)
where $`\eta `$ is the ratio of WR and OB-companion wind momenta, $`(\dot{M}v)_{\mathrm{OB}}/(\dot{M}v)_{\mathrm{WR}}`$. The wind-collision geometry and equation 3 would also be affected by clumping, but this is beyond the scope of the present study.

By defining the ratio of the OB star and WR-star wind densities, $`(\dot{M}/v)_{\mathrm{OB}}/(\dot{M}/v)_{\mathrm{WR}}`$, as $`\xi `$, then

$$\frac{\dot{M}_{\mathrm{OB}}}{\dot{M}_{\mathrm{WR}}}=(\eta \xi )^{\frac{1}{2}}\&\frac{v_{\mathrm{OB}}}{v_{\mathrm{WR}}}=(\frac{\eta }{\xi })^{\frac{1}{2}}.$$
(4)
Knowing $`\dot{M}_{\mathrm{WR}}`$ and $`v_{\mathrm{WR}}`$ we can now uniquely determine $`\dot{M}_{\mathrm{OB}}`$ and $`v_{\mathrm{OB}}`$ that satisfy simultaneously both $`\xi `$ and $`\eta `$. An attractive property of these ratios is that they are independent of distance, typically a very uncertain parameter for WR stars and particularly for WR 146.

For the OB companion we will assume that hydrogen and helium are, respectively, singly and doubly ionized, leading to values $`\gamma =1.1`$, $`Z=1.15`$, $`\mu =1.34`$ (Lamers & Leitherer 1993) and $`T_e10^4`$ K. Taking the values of $`\gamma =1.15,Z=1.2`$, $`\mu =5.29`$, $`T_e=\mathrm{8\hspace{0.17em}000}`$ K from Willis et al. (1997) for the WR star, and that the fluxes of N22 and S22 are those of the OB star and the WC star respectively, implies that $`\xi =0.36\pm 0.19`$. From Table 2, $`D`$ is $`162\pm 8`$ mas and $`r_{OB}`$ is $`40\pm 9`$ mas, so equation 3 gives $`\eta =0.11\pm 0.03`$. Thus, the ratios of mass-loss rates and wind velocities are $`0.20\pm 0.06`$ and $`0.56\pm 0.17`$ respectively. The largest uncertainty in these ratios arises from $`\xi `$. Though this requires knowledge of the relative metallicity and ionization structure within the two winds, the values of $`Z`$ and $`\gamma `$ are closely the same and effectively cancel. On the other hand, the mean molecular weights of the two winds are quite different and contributes a factor $`2`$ to the ratio. The relative uncertainty in the observed fluxes provides the bulk of the uncertainty in $`\xi `$.

From the deduced velocity ratio and the terminal wind velocity measured for the WC6 star ($`2900`$ km s-1, Eenens & Williams 1994), we derive a terminal velocity of the OB wind of $`1600\pm 480`$ km s-1. This is consistent with those determined for late O-type stars of any luminosity class (Prinja, Barlow & Howarth 1990). However, the deduced ratio (0.19) of mass-loss rates implies a very high mass-loss rate for the OB star, irrespective of the distance to WR 146. For example, if the WC6 star has a mass-loss rate comparable to the average rate derived from radio or from “Standard Model” analyses of optical emission lines ($`4\times 10^5`$ M y-1, Willis 1999), that of the OB star would be $`8\times 10^6`$ My-1. This is comparable to that determined for the O8f supergiant HD 151804 (Bieging, Abbott & Churchwell 1989, Crowther & Bohannan 1997) and almost $`50\times `$ greater than the mass-loss rates typical of main-sequence O8 stars ($`1.7\times 10^7`$ M y-1, Howarth & Prinja 1989). This result still holds if the true mass-loss rates of WR stars are lower than the value cited owing to clumping since it is really the ratio of $`(\dot{M}/\sqrt{f})`$s that has been determined. Only if the OB-star wind was clumped would its mass-loss rate be reduced by a factor of $`\sqrt{f}`$ .

Throughout the paper we have identified the southern and northern sources as the WR and OB star respectively. If these identifications were switched i.e. WR star is to the north, and the OB star to the south, then the deduced wind velocity of the OB star is greater than $`\mathrm{18\hspace{0.17em}000}`$ km s-1 and the mass-loss rate is 1.4 times that of the WR star. Clearly these parameters are unacceptable given our knowledge of OB-star winds and we dismiss such a source identification as untenable.

The mass-loss rates determined from the measured free-free wind fluxes depend heavily on the adopted distance to WR 146. Therefore, we first re-examine the luminosity of the system using new optical observations.

## 3 Optical Spectroscopy

### 3.1 The observations

The spectrum of WR 146 was taken with the blue arm of the ISIS spectrograph on the William Herschel Telescope (WHT) on 1999 June 19. As in Paper I, we observed in the blue, where the relative contribution of the OB companion would be greatest, and avoided the strong $`\lambda `$4650Å emission feature from the WR star. The R1200B grating and 1.1 arcsec slit gave a resolution of 0.9 Å. Four integrations, each of 750s, were taken of the star, interleaved with observations of an argon discharge tube for wavelength calibration. The detector used was a $`4200\times 2048`$ EEV42 device.

We present the new spectrum of WR 146 in Fig. 5 and list absorption lines in Table 3. The spectrum has been smoothed giving a resolution $``$ 1.0 Å (FWHM), as measured from the widths of the narrow interstellar CH, CH+ and Ca i lines. The FWHM of the $`\lambda `$3933Å Ca ii line is 1.6 Å, the greater width coming from optical depth effects (cf. Jenniskens & Désert 1994). The well developed interstellar spectrum is consistent with the heavy reddening suffered by WR 146.

The broad undulations in the continuum are mostly emission lines from the WC6 star, diluted by the light from the companion. The emission lines in WR 146 are unusually broad for its WC6 subtype (cf. Eenens & Williams 1994, Willis et al. 1997), making it easier to measure the absorption spectrum of the companion. The absorption line widths are typically $``$ 5Å FWHM, comparable for example to those of the O9.5II star $`\delta `$ Ori (cf. Voels et al. 1989), which has a relatively high $`v\mathrm{sin}i`$ (144 km s-1, Howarth et al. 1997).

There is one absorption feature from the WC6 star; the P-Cygni absorption component of the $`\lambda `$3889Å He i line, blue-shifted by 2630 km s-1 to 3854.5Å. This line arises from the same metastable level as the $`\lambda `$10830Å line from which Eenens & Williams (1994) derived a terminal wind velocity (v) of 2900 km s-1 by profile fitting and, like the $`\lambda `$10830Å line, is expected to form in the outer regions of the WC6 wind. These results are consistent with the v$`{}_{\mathrm{}}{}^{}=2700`$ km s-1 measured by Willis et al. from the \[Ne iii\] $`\lambda `$15.5-$`\mu `$m fine-structure line, also formed in the outer wind.

The other absorption lines (Table 3) are formed in the OB-companion star. Each of the hydrogen lines is blended with the nearby member of the Pickering series of He ii but the relative weakness of the unblended odd-numbered Pickering line at 4200Å and the closer proximity of the hydrogen-line wavelengths to the observed wavelengths suggests that the He ii contribution is relatively small. Helium i is represented by the $`\lambda \lambda `$ 4472 and 4026Å lines; the latter is blended with He ii and is therefore not very useful for diagnostic purposes. Other He i lines in the Walborn & Fitzpatrick (1990) atlas of hot-star spectra are not seen in our spectrum. The relative strength of the $`\lambda `$ 4070Å C iii triplet is a little surprising but the continuum here is uncertain as it falls between two emission features from the WC6 spectrum.

In order to establish the continuum in the regions of each of the absorption lines so that we could measure their equivalent widths, we compared our rectified spectrum with that of another WC6 star, WR 15 (HD 79573), artificially diluted so as to match the spectrum of WR 146. The spectrum of WR 15 was observed with the 1.9m telescope at the South African Astronomical Observatory and will be discussed elsewhere. As a by-product of this matching, we estimated the dilution of the WC6 spectrum in WR 146, finding OB:WR $``$ 3, consistent with the ratio, OB:WR $`=`$2$`\pm `$1, found by Willis et al. (1997) from stronger emission lines between 4660Å and 6560Å. We are chary of putting too much weight on this result as it depends heavily on the rectification process and the presumption that the WC6 emission lines in WR 146 have the same strengths as those in WR 15. Instead, we concentrate on the absorption lines, to be discussed below.

### 3.2 Spectral type and luminosity of the OB companion

To investigate the nature of the OB companion, we begin by using the helium-line ratios to estimate its spectral type. Our optical spectrum includes contributions from both NO and SO but the ratios of the absorption lines in the companion will be equal to those measured from our combined-light spectrum, and independent of the dilution by the WR star, provided that the dilution does not change significantly over the wavelength range of the spectrum.

Formal O-star spectra classification is based on the ratio of the $`\lambda `$4541Å He ii and $`\lambda `$4472Å He i lines. Since the former was not available, we used the $`\lambda `$4200Å He ii line from the same series. We formed an empirical calibration of $`\lambda `$4472Å/$`\lambda `$4200Å ratios against spectral type using the line strengths measured for a large ($``$ 100) sample of O stars by Conti & Alschuler (1971) and Conti (1973). Using this calibration, the ratio of our measured equivalent widths (Table 3) indicates a type of O8, with an uncertainty of half a subclass. The type is close to that inferred by Willis et al. from their OB:WR light ratio and an average luminosity for the WC6 star; but this agreement is fortuitous.

The luminosity class criterion adopted by Conti & Alschuler for the middle and late-type O stars was the ratio of the Si iv $`\lambda `$4089Å and He i $`\lambda `$4143Å lines. Unfortunately, the silicon line is too weak (W$`{}_{\lambda }{}^{}`$ 0.06Å) to measure with confidence and the $`\lambda `$4143Å line is not seen at all. Another significant He i line that is apparently missing is the $`\lambda `$4388Å singlet line. The strength of this relative to that of the $`\lambda `$4472Å He i line (“singlet to triplet ratio”) has long been known to be sensitive to luminosity owing to the relative overpopulation of the He i 2$`{}_{}{}^{3}P_{}^{o}`$ state in extended atmospheres (e.g. Voels et al. 1989 and references therein). Using the equivalent-width measurements by Conti & Alschuler (1971) and Conti (1973), we examined the ratios, W= Wλ($`\lambda `$4388)/Wλ($`\lambda `$4472), formed from their observations of the O7.5, O8 and O8.5 stars in their sample. This ratio was found to be a strong diagnostic for Of stars. All the O7.5–8.5 stars having W$`{}_{}{}^{}<0.25`$ are Of stars, most of them supergiants. Measurement of the $`\lambda `$4472Å line and examination of our spectrum in the region of the $`\lambda `$4388Å line indicates that W $``$ 0.2, strongly suggesting that the O8 star in WR 146 is an Of star, and possibly a supergiant. Unfortunately, the classical Of diagnostic emission features C iii $`\lambda \lambda `$4630–41Å and He ii $`\lambda `$4686Å fall within the strong $`\lambda `$ 4650Å C iii-iv/He ii emission feature from the WC6 star, which extends from 4620Å to 4690 Å in WR 146 (Dessart et al. 2000). This increases the dilution of the OB spectrum to $``$ 1:4 in this critical region and we cannot make a formal Of classification.

Further circumstantial support for a high luminosity for the OB star comes from comparison of the $`\lambda `$4472Å He i to H$`\gamma `$ ratio with those derived from the Conti & Alschuler and Conti (1973) datasets. On the other hand, we do not observe emission lines corresponding to the ‘unidentified’ features observed in O6–O9.7 supergiants, including the O8If star HD 151804 (Crowther & Bohannan 1997), at 4486Åand 4504Å. Also, the weakness of the Si iv $`\lambda `$4089Å line is surprising given the other evidence for high luminosity, but not unique: the Si iv line is barely visible in the spectrum of the O7Iaf star Sanduleak 80 (Walborn & Fitzpatrick 1990). Although we cannot assign a luminosity class, the spectrum points to an extended atmosphere and high luminosity, but not as high as that of HD 151804.

### 3.3 Spectral line dilution and the HST photometry

With a better idea of the nature of the O8 star, can we reconcile the measured absorption-line strengths in our composite spectrum with the observations by Niemela et al. (1998)? We follow Paper I and Niemela et al. by assigning the northern optical image (NO) to the O8 star on the basis of its closer proximity to the non-thermal radio source and the assumption that its stellar wind has a lower momentum than that of the WC6 star. If we assume that the spectrum of SO is that of a WC6 star, we can estimate the intrinsic equivalent widths in the O8 spectrum from those observed in our combined-light spectrum and Niemela et al.’s photometry of SO and NO. We find 1.4Å for the intrinsic equivalent width of H$`\gamma `$, which is closer to the average of those measured by Conti (1973) for O8f stars (1.3$`\pm `$0.3Å) than for ‘non-Of’ O8III–V stars (2.5$`\pm `$0.2Å), another indication of high luminosity properties for the OB star. Our earlier view (Paper I) that the WC6 star was brighter than the OB star was based on the erroneous assumption of intrinsic absorption-line strengths appropriate for a main-sequence OB star.

The observation of approximately equal B magnitudes for NO and SO is not consistent with the light ratios derived from dilution of the emission-line spectrum of the WC6 star by Willis et al. (1997), and supported by our estimate in Section 2.1. This could be resolved also if the emission lines in the WC6 component were 30–40% weaker than those typical of WC6 stars. This is plausible; as already noted, the star appears to have an abnormally low C/He abundance ratio and the dilution analysis by Willis et al. depends heavily on C iii and C iv lines. Therefore, the very different light ratios originally derived from combined-light spectra in Paper I and by Willis et al. can be reconciled with a model in which WR 146 comprises two stars of approximately equal brightness in the blue and relatively weak lines, those of NO being consistent with other indicators of its high luminosity.

### 3.4 The nature of the northern component

The H$`\gamma `$ strength (together with HST photometry), the He i singlet-to-triplet line ratio, and the very high mass-loss rate all point to an extended atmosphere for NO. If it is single, it cannot be a main-sequence star but must be luminous. Alternatively, it may itself be an unresolved binary comprising an O8 star with a third component.

If NO was a single, luminous star, we can estimate its absolute magnitude from those of O8I/f and O8III stars ($`M_V=6.5`$ and $`5.5`$, Conti 1988; Vacca, Garmany & Shull 1996). For example, combination of an intermediate luminosity, $`M_V=6.0`$, which might be appropriate given the apparent absence of the ‘unidentifed’ 4486Å and 4504Å emission lines, with the photometry by Niemela et al. would give $`M_V=6.2`$ for SO and a combined $`M_V=6.9`$ for the WR 146 system. The implied luminosity of the WC6 star, $`M_V=6.2`$ or $`M_v6.0`$ on the narrow-band $`ubv`$ system used for WR stars, is significantly greater than those of other WC6 stars (e.g. mean $`M_v=4.1\pm 0.4`$, van der Hucht, in preparation), but this may be another manifestation of the anomalous nature of the WC6 star in WR 146.

Adopting a reddening of $`E_{BV}=2.7`$, consistent with Paper I and Willis et al. (1997), the combined $`M_V`$ implies a distance modulus $`mM=11.2`$, greater than our distance in Paper I ($`mM=10.4`$) but consistent with membership of the Cyg OB2 Association ($`mM=11.2`$, Massey & Thompson 1991; Torres-Dodgen, Tapia & Carroll 1991). Given the angular distance ($`0.5^{}`$) of WR 146 from the centre of the association, stronger evidence is needed to confirm membership.

At this distance (1.7 kpc), the mass-loss rates derived for the WC6 and O8 stars are very high: $`1.3\times 10^4`$ My-1 and $`2.5\times 10^5`$ My-1 respectively. The latter is three times that of HD 151804, whereas the luminosity of NO appears to be lower. Such a system would have stronger emission lines that those in HD 151804, contrary to observations (e.g. 4486Å and 4504Å or H$`\alpha `$ in Dessart et al. 2000, fig 4 compared with Crowther & Bohannan 1997), so the single high-luminosity model for NO is problematic.

If we consider NO to be an unresolved binary in which some of the mass-loss is contributed by a third component, the latter is unlikely to be another O-type star. Since $`\dot{M}L^{1.7}`$ for O stars (Howarth & Prinja 1987), we expect the mass-loss rate of an O+O system to be lower than that of a single star having the same total luminosity. Also, the intrinsic strengths of the H$`\gamma `$ lines from two lower luminosity stars are likely to be greater, in conflict with our combined-light spectrum and the HST photometry.

A model wherein the third component is another WC star suffers neither of these problems. Its spectral subtype would have to be similar to that of SO, or it would have to be fainter, not to have been detected in the combined-light spectra. Its presence could account for some of the anomalous properties (e.g. low C/He) of the WC6 star reported in the studies referred to. It could also modulate the wind of the O8 star flowing towards the wind interaction region, providing a mechanism for the 3.38-y variability in the non-thermal emission reported by Setia Gunawan et al. (2000). To examine this model, separate spectra of NO and SO, e.g. with an adaptive optics system, are needed to see whether NO has a WC companion (or Of emission lines) and to determine its spectrum without dilution.

## 4 Conclusions

From high-resolution observations with the VLA at 22 GHz and with MERLIN at 5 GHz we have observed all three components of the WR 146 system: the OB and WC6 stellar winds and the non-thermal source where they collide. The source geometry and ratio of stellar wind fluxes allow us to determine the ratios of mass-loss rates and wind velocities independent of distance to the system. From these ratios and the observations of the WC6 star, we derive the wind velocity of the OB star to be $`1600\pm 480`$ km s-1 and its mass-loss rate to be one quarter that of the WC6 star. If the WC6 star has an “average” WR-star mass-loss rate of $`4\times 10^5`$ M y-1, that of the OB star would be $`8\times 10^6`$ M y-1, suggesting a very high luminosity object.

Support for high luminosity comes from the optical spectrum of WR 146, which includes both stars. This shows absorption-line ratios formed in the OB companion suggesting it to be a high-luminosity O8 star. If it is a single star, the inferred luminosity places WR 146 at the distance of the Cyg OB2 association. This gives an anomalously high luminosity for the WC6 star but, given its other anomalies, does not rule out this distance. However, the mass-loss rates determined using this distance ($`1.3\times 10^4`$ My-1 for the WC6 star and $`2.6\times 10^5`$ My-1 for the O8 star) are awkwardly high and the latter is probably inconsistent with the spectroscopy. Many, if not all, of the observations could be explained if the companion was itself a binary comprising an O8 star and another WC star. This needs to be tested by separate spectra of the two visual components of WR 146. The presence of an unresolved companion to the O8 star could modulate its wind so as to cause the 3.38-y variability in the non-thermal emission reported by Setia Gunawan et al. (2000).

We may not have reached a firm conclusion as to the nature of the stellar companion(s) to the WC star from the new radio and optical observations. However, the ability to study all three radio components of the WR 146 system separately will ensure that this system becomes an archetype for studying the wind-collision phenomenon.

## Acknowledgements

This research has made use of data from MERLIN, a UK national facility operated by the University of Manchester, and the William Herschel Telescope, operated on Observatorio del Roque de los Muchachos, La Palma, by the Isaac Newton Group, both on behalf of Particle Physics and Astronomy Research Council; the National Radio Astronomy Observatory Very Large Array, a facility of the National Science Foundation operated under cooperative agreement with Associated Universities, Inc; the University of Michigan Radio Astronomy Observatory supported by the National Science Foundation and the University of Michigan; the South African Astronomical Observatory; and the SIMBAD database, operated at the CDS, Strasbourg, France. The authors are indebted to the referee, Ian Howarth, for his detailed critique of the original manuscript and suggestions for improvements that sharpened our thinking; and to Amy Fink for sharing her observations prior to publication. SMD is indebted to the National Research Council of Canada, Dominion Radio Astrophysical Observatory for supporting this research.


text:
# A REMARKABLE ANGULAR DISTRIBUTION OF THE INTERMEDIATE SUBCLASS OF THE GAMMA-RAY BURSTS

## ABSTRACT

In the article a test is developed, which allows to test the null-hypothesis of the intrinsic randomness in the angular distribution of gamma-ray bursts collected at the Current BATSE Catalog. The method is a modified version of the well-known counts-in-cells test, and fully eliminates the non-uniform sky-exposure function of BATSE instrument. Applying this method to the case of all gamma-ray bursts no intrinsic non-randomness was found. The test also did not find intrinsic non-randomnesses for the short and long gamma-ray bursts, respectively. On the other hand, using the method to the new intermediate subclass of gamma-ray bursts, the null-hypothesis of the intrinsic randomness for 181 intermediate gamma-ray bursts is rejected on the $`96.4\%`$ confidence level. Taking 92 dimmer bursts from this subclass itself, we obtain the surprising result: This ”dim” subclass of the intermediate subclass has an intrinsic non-randomness on the 99.3% confidence level. On the other hand, the 89 ”bright” GRBs show no intrinsic non-randomness.
Subject headings: cosmology: observations - gamma rays: bursts

## 1 INTRODUCTION

Two results of the last years in the statistics of the gamma-ray bursts (GRBs) are doubtlessly remarkable.

The first one concerns the number of subclasses. Recently, two different articles (\[Mukherjee et al. 1998\]; \[Horváth 1998\]) simultaneously suggest that the earlier separation \[Kouveliotou et al. 1993\] of GRBs into short and long subclasses is incomplete. (It is a common practice to call GRBs having $`T_{90}<2`$ s ($`T_{90}>2`$ s) as short (long) GRBs, where $`T_{90}`$ is the time during which 90% of the fluence is accumulated \[Kouveliotou et al. 1993\].) These articles show that, in essence, the earlier long subclass alone should be further separated into a new ”intermediate” subclass ($`2`$ s $`<T_{90}<10`$ s) and into a ”truncated long” subclass ($`T_{90}>10`$ s). (In what follows, the long subclass will contain only the GRBs with $`T_{90}>10`$ s, and the intermediate subclass will be considered as a new subclass.)

The second result concerns the angular distribution of GRBs. At the last years several attempts (\[Hartmann et al. 1991\], \[Briggs et al. 1996\]; \[Tegmark et al. 1996b\]; \[Balázs et al. 1998\]; \[Balázs et al. 1999\]) were done either to confirm or to reject the randomness in the angular sky distribution of GRBs being collected at BATSE Catalog (\[Fishman et al. 1994\]; \[Meegan et al. 1998\]). Theoretically, if the intrinsic distribution of GRBs is actually random, an observation of some non-randomness is still expected due to the BATSE non-uniform sky-exposure function (\[Fishman et al. 1994\]; \[Meegan et al. 1998\]). Hartmann et al. (1991), Briggs et al. (1996) and Tegmark et al. (1996b) did not find any statistically significant departure from the randomness. On the other hand, the existence of some non-randomness was confirmed on the $`>99.9\%`$ confidence level by Balázs et al. (1998). This behavior can be caused either purely by instrumental effects or the instrumental effects alone do not explain fully the detected behavior and some intrinsic non-randomnesses should also exist. Balázs et al. (1998, 1999) suggest the second possibility. This conclusion follows from the result that while the short subclass shows a non-randomness, the intermediate + long subclasses do not indicate it. It is difficult to explain such behavior of subclasses by the instrumental effects alone.

In this article we will again investigate the angular distribution of GRBs. Trivially, after the discovery of the new intermediate subclass, it is highly required to test the intrinsic randomness in the angular distribution of this new subclass, too. In addition, of course, new different tests, which exactly eliminate the effect of the sky-exposure function, are also required in order to complete the results of Balázs et al. (1998, 1999).

The aim of this article is to test the intrinsic randomness in the angular distribution of all GRBs and of the three subclasses separately, too. We will use a modification of the well-known counts-in-cells method. This is a standard and simple statistical test (see, cf., Mészáros (1997) and references therein). The advantage of this method is given by the fact that it allows to eliminate quite simply and exactly the sky-exposure function. The main result of paper will be the surprising conclusion that the intermediate subclass and only this subclass alone suggests a non-randomness on the 96.4% confidence level; its ”dimmer” half even on the 99.3% confidence level.

The paper is organized as follows. In Section 2 the method is described. In Section 3 the results of test are presented. Section 4 discusses and summarizes the results of the article.

## 2 THE TEST

Assume for the moment that there is no non-uniform sky-exposure function. We separate the sky in declination into $`m_{dec}>1`$ stripes having the same area ($`4\pi /m_{dec}`$ steradian). The boundaries of stripes are the declinations $`\delta _k,k=0,1,\mathrm{},m_{dec}`$, where $`\delta _0=90`$ degree and $`\delta _{m_{dec}}=+90`$ degree, respectively. The remaining values are analytically calculable, and appear symmetrically with respect to $`\delta =0`$. One has: $`\mathrm{sin}\delta _k=2k/m_{dec}1`$. (For example: If $`m_{dec}=3`$, then $`\delta _{1,2}=\pm 19.47`$ degree; if $`m_{dec}=4`$, then $`\delta _{1,3}=\pm 30.00`$ degree and $`\delta _2=0.00`$ degree; etc.) We also separate the sky in right ascension $`\alpha `$ into $`m_{ra}>1`$ stripes. They are defined by boundaries $`\alpha =360k^{}/m_{ra}`$ degree; $`k^{}=0,1,..,m_{ra}`$. (Obviously, a trivial modification of this separation in right ascension is the case, when the boundaries are $`\alpha =360(k^{}+p)/m_{ra}`$ degree, where $`p`$ is an arbitrary real number fulfilling $`0<p<1`$.) All this means that we separated the sky into $`M=m_{dec}\times m_{ra}`$ areas (”cells”) having the same size $`4\pi /M`$ steradian. If there are $`N`$ GRBs on the sky, then $`n=N/M`$ is the mean of GRBs at a cell. Let $`n_i;i=1,2,\mathrm{},M`$ be the observed number of GRBs at the $`i`$th cell ($`_{i=1}^Mn_i=N`$). Then

$$var_M=(M1)^1\underset{i=1}{\overset{M}{}}(n_in)^2$$
(1)
defines the observed variance. For the given cell structure with $`M`$ cells, due to the Bernoulli distribution (\[Mészáros 1997\], \[Balázs et al. 1998\]), the measured variance $`var_M`$ should be identical to the theoretically expected value $`n(11/M)`$. This theoretical prediction should then be tested.

Note that this and similar methods (see, e.g., Mészáros (1997) for details and further references) are usual in astronomy. For example, this method was used already by Abell (1958) to reject the randomness in the sky-distribution of clusters of galaxies. The test is, compared with other statistical tests (”two-point angular correlation function”, ”nearest neighbor distances”, etc.; \[Peebles 1980\]; \[Diggle 1983\]; \[Pásztor 1993\]), not the most sensitive one to detect non-randomnesses. Its importance for our purposes is given by the fact that it allows an extremely simple generalization to the case with non-zero sky-exposure function.

Now, we generalize the method to this case. This may easily be done by changing the boundaries of cells in order to have the same probability (and hence the same expected number $`n=N/M`$) for a given cell. The sky-exposure function is a function of declination only (\[Fishman et al. 1994\]; \[Meegan et al. 1998\]). Hence, the choice of equatorial coordinates is highly convenient, because then no changes of boundaries are necessary in right ascension. The new boundaries $`\delta _k,k=0,1,\mathrm{},m_{dec}`$ in declination may be calculated analytically as follows. Clearly, $`\delta _{0,m_{dec}}=\pm 90`$ degree remain. In BATSE Catalog \[Meegan et al. 1998\] the exposure function $`f(\delta )`$ is defined for 37 values of declination (for $`\delta _r=90,85,\mathrm{},+85,+90`$ degree; $`r=0,1,2,..,36`$). To obtain $`\delta _k`$ we, first, calculate the value

$$A=\frac{5\pi }{180}\underset{r=1}{\overset{35}{}}f(\delta _r)\mathrm{cos}\delta _r,$$
(2)
where for the given $`r`$ the corresponding declination is $`\delta _r=90+5r`$ degree. (Remark that $`r=0`$ and $`r=36`$, respectively, need not be in the sum, because $`\mathrm{cos}(\pm 90)=0`$.) Then, second, for $`m_{dec}2`$ we search for the values $`\delta _k;k=1,2,\mathrm{},(m_{dec}1)`$ as follows. For the given $`k`$ we search for the declination $`\delta _i`$ fulfilling the condition

$$\frac{\pi }{36A}\underset{j=1}{\overset{i}{}}f(\delta _j)\mathrm{cos}\delta _j\frac{k}{m_{dec}}<\frac{\pi }{36A}\underset{j=1}{\overset{i+1}{}}f(\delta _j)\mathrm{cos}\delta _j.$$
(3)
Having this we search, by linear interpolation between $`\delta _i`$ and $`\delta _{i+1}`$, for the exact value of $`\delta _k`$. By this method $`\delta _k`$ is well calculable. (For example: For $`m_{dec}=3`$ we obtain $`\delta _1=19.51`$ degree, $`\delta _2=22.44`$ degree; for $`m_{dec}=4`$ we obtain $`\delta _1=30.83`$ degree, $`\delta _2=1.51`$ degree, $`\delta _3=33.60`$ degree; etc.) Having these cells with these ”shifted” boundaries in declination the variance may be calculated identically to the case with no sky-exposure function. This method will test the pure intrinsic randomness; the effect of BATSE sky-exposure function is exactly eliminated.

It is natural to probe different values of $`M`$. In addition, for some $`M`$ different cell structures are still possible (cf. $`M=12`$ allows $`m_{dec}=2,3,4,6`$). Hence, generally, several - say $`Q`$ \- cell structures may be probed for the same sample of GRBs. Having these $`Q`$ cell structures (and hence $`Q`$ means + $`Q`$ measured variances) two questions arise. 1. How to calculate the confidence level for a given cell structure? 2. Having $`Q`$ values of confidence levels, how to calculate the final confidence level? The answer for the first question seems to be quite clear: $`var_M/n`$ seems to be identical to the $`\chi ^2`$ value for $`M1`$ degree of freedom (\[Trumpler & Weaver 1953\]; \[Kendall & Stuart 1969\]; \[Press et al. 1992\]; the mean is obtained from the sample itself, and therefore the degree of freedom is $`M1`$). Nevertheless, the situation is not so obvious, because the $`\chi ^2`$ test needs $`n>5`$ (\[Trumpler & Weaver 1953\]; \[Kendall & Stuart 1969\]; \[Press et al. 1992\]). In addition, some statistical text-books propose to use ”quadratic” cells only (\[Diggle 1983\], Chapt. 2.5.). If all these restrictions were taken into account, then $`\chi ^2`$ tests would be possible only for $`2m_{dec}=m_{ra};M=2m_{dec}^2`$ and $`N>5M=10m_{dec}^2`$. This would be a drastic truncation of the possible cell structures. But, not doing these restrictions, the estimation of the confidence level for a given cell structure must be done by more complicated procedures; e.g., by numerical simulations. Concerning the answer to the second question the situation is even less clear. As the reasonable search for the final confidence level only Monte Carlo simulations seem to be usable \[Press et al. 1992\].

Keeping all this in mind, we will proceed as follows. In the coordinate system with axes $`x=1/M`$ versus $`y=\sqrt{var_M/n}=(var/mean)^{1/2}`$ the $`Q`$ values of $`(var/mean)^{1/2}`$ define $`Q`$ points (one point for any cell structure; $`y_j=\sqrt{var_{M,j}/n}`$, where $`j=1,2,\mathrm{}.,Q`$). Clearly, for these points one expects the theoretical curve $`y=\sqrt{1x}`$. This theoretical expectation can straightforwardly be verified, e.g., by least squares estimation (\[Press et al. 1992\], Chapt. 15.2.; \[Diggle 1983\], Chapt. 5.3.1). Our estimator is the dispersion

$$\sigma _Q=\underset{j=1}{\overset{Q}{}}(y_j\sqrt{11/M})^2.$$
(4)
Obviously, smaller $`\sigma _Q`$ suggests that the theoretical curve is better fitted. Note still that, as the best choice, the square root of $`var_M/n`$ is proposed in this ”var/mean” test (\[Diggle 1983\], Chapt. 5.4.).

The confidence level can then be estimated by Monte Carlo simulations in the following way: We throw 1000-times randomly $`N`$ points on the sphere, and repeat the above calculation leading to $`\sigma _Q`$ for every simulated sample. Then we compare the size of the $`\sigma _Q`$ obtained from this simulation with $`\sigma _Q`$ obtained from the actual GRB positions. Let $`\omega `$ be the number of simulations, when the obtained $`\sigma _Q`$ is bigger than the actual value of $`\sigma _Q`$. Then one may conclude that $`(100\omega /10)`$ is the confidence level in percentage. Clearly, this method does not need $`n>5`$ and quadratic cells.

There is no commonly accepted confidence level in statistics, above which the null-hypothesis should already be rejected (\[Trumpler & Weaver 1953\]; \[Kendall & Stuart 1969\]). It is only a general agreement that confidence levels smaller than $`95\%`$ should not be considered. Our opinion is (see also \[Kendall & Stuart 1969\]) that the confidence levels bigger than $`95\%`$ can already be taken as ”remarkable”, ”suspicious”, ”interesting”, etc.; a higher than 99% confidence level may still mean the rejection of null-hypothesis, and such result must doubtlessly be announced. Hence, we will require that the confidence level be bigger than $`95\%`$. Thus, here it must be $`\omega <50`$.

In this paper GRBs will be taken between trigger-numbers 0105 and 6963 from Current BATSE Catalog \[Meegan et al. 1998\] having defined $`T_{90}`$ (i.e. all GRBs detected up to August 1996 having measured $`T_{90}`$). From them we exclude, similarly to Pendleton et al. (1997) and Balázs et al. (1998), the faintest GRBs having a peak flux (on 256 ms trigger) smaller than 0.65 photon/(cm2s). This truncation is proposed by Pendleton et al. (1997) in order to avoid the problems with the changing threshold. The 1284 GRBs obtained in this way define the ”all” class. From them there were 339 GRBs with $`T_{90}<2`$ s (the ”short” subclass), 181 GRBs with $`2`$ s $`<T_{90}<10`$ s (the ”intermediate” subclass) and 764 GRBs with $`T_{90}>10`$ s (the ”long” subclass). We will study the all class and the three subclasses separately.

We will ad hoc choose $`m_{dec}=2,3,\mathrm{},8`$ and $`m_{ra}=2,3,\mathrm{},16`$. I.e. it will be $`Q=105`$. Of course, this choice of $`Q`$ is more or less subjective. Nevertheless, our choice is motivated by two concrete arguments. First, we would like to study only the angular scales much bigger than the positional errors. (The size of a cell will not be smaller than 22.5 degree. On these angular scales no problems should arise from the positional errors \[Meegan et al. 1998\].) Second, it is reasonable not to consider such high values of $`m_{dec}`$, when $`180/m_{dec}`$ is already comparable or even smaller than 5 degree. (If this were not required then the elimination of sky-exposure function would be problematic due to its definition for declination intervals with widths 5 degree.)

## 3 THE RESULTS

Figure 1 collects the results of $`Q=105`$ ”var/mean” tests of four different cases. It is obvious immediately that for the ”all” case the points follow well the theoretical curve. For the ”short” and ”long” subclasses, on the other hand, there is a slight tendency of points to be above the theoretical curve. The situation concerning the intermediate subclass seems to be the most unambiguous: mainly for small $`M`$ (roughly below $`M40`$) the points are clearly above the theoretical curve. This suggests an intrinsic non-randomness mainly in the sky distribution of intermediate subclass; such possibility for the short and long subclasses, respectively, cannot be excluded, too.

The results of Monte Carlo simulations support this expectation only in the case of intermediate subclass. We obtain $`\omega =287`$ ($`\omega =80`$, $`\omega =36`$, $`\omega =440`$) for all GRBs (short, intermediate, long GRBs). Hence, the rejection of null-hypothesis is confirmed for the intermediate subclass only on the 96.4% confidence level. For the short and long subclasses, respectively, and also for all GRBs the null-hypothesis cannot be rejected on the $`>95\%`$ confidence level. For the short subclass we have a $`92\%`$ confidence level; for the remaining two cases even smaller levels.

## 4 DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION

The most surprising result of paper concerns the intermediate subclass. The intrinsic non-randomness is confirmed on the confidence level $`>95\%`$. This confidence level, as discussed in Section 2, is ”remarkable”, but is not enough to reject the null-hypothesis of randomness.

The results concerning the $`339`$ short GRBs should also be mentioned. Nevertheless, the $`92\%`$ confidence level is clearly not enough to reject the confidence null-hypothesis. On the other hand, this result, together with Balázs et al. (1998, 1999), suggest that also for the short subclass itself the rejection of null-hypothesis of intrinsic randomness can also occur by further tests.

In the case of $`764`$ long GRBs, and also of the $`1284`$ all GRBs, there are no indications for the non-randomnesses. All this seems to be in accordance with the results of Balázs et al. (1998, 1999).

We think that the result concerning the intermediate subclass is highly surprising, because just this new subclass, having the smallest number of GRBs, has a remarkable ”proper” behavior.

A short further investigation of this subclass fully supports this conclusion.

There are 181 GRBs in this intermediate subclass. Be divided this subclass into two further subclasses; into the ”dim” and ”bright” ones. By chance the peak flux = 2 photons/(cm2s) (on $`0.256`$s trigger) is practically identical to the medium of peak flux for this subclass. Therefore, we consider the GRBs having smaller (bigger) peak flux 2 photons/(cm2s) as the ”dim” (”bright”) subclass of the intermediate subclass. There are 92 GRBs at the ”dim” subclass, and 89 GRBs at the ”bright” one.

We provide the 105 ”var/mean” tests for these two parts, too. We obtain the surprising result that the ”dim” subclass has an intrinsic non-randomness on the 99.3% confidence level ($`\omega =7`$). Contrary this, the ”bright” subclass can still be random ($`\omega =662`$).

The sky distribution of $`92`$ intermediate dim GRBs is shown on Figure 2.

We mean that the behavior of the intermerdiate subclass of GRBs, quite independently, supports the correctness of the introduction of this new subclass (\[Mukherjee et al. 1998\]; \[Horváth 1998\]). Further investigations of this new subclass are highly required.

Three notes are still needed.

First, purely from the statistical point of view, it must be precised that even the rejection of null-hypothesis of the intrinsic randomness would not mean a pure intrinsic non-randomness in the spatial angular distribution of GRBs. This is given by the fact that, up to now, it cannot be fully excluded that GRBs (or some part of them) are not unique phenomenons, and there can occur some repetitions, too. This question is studied intensively by several papers (\[Meegan et al. 1995\], \[Quashnock 1995\], \[Quashnock 1996\], \[Tegmark et al. 1996a\], \[Graziani et al. 1998\], \[Hakkila et al. 1998\]) concluding that repetition can still play a role.

Second, strictly speaking, the statistical counts-in-cells test is testing the ”complete spatial randomness” (shortly the ”randomness”) of the distribution of GRB on the celestial sphere (\[Diggle 1983\], Chapt.1.3). Therefore, in this paper we have kept this terminology. In cosmology, on the other hand, the word ”random” (”non-random”) is rarely used, and the word ”isotropic” (”anisotropic”) is usual (for the exact definition of isotropy in cosmology see, e.g., Weinberg (1972), Chapt. 14.1). Of course, here we will not go into the details of these terminology questions (see, e.g., Peebles (1980) for more details concerning these questions). We note only that the ”random-isotropic” (”non-random-anisotropic”) substitution is quite acceptable on the biggest angular scales; on smaller angular scales the situation is not so clear. Therefore, in Balázs et al. (1998, 1999), where only the angular scales $`90`$ degrees and higher were studied, the words ”isotropy” and ”anisotropy” were quite usable. In this article, going down up to the scales $`(2025)`$ degree, the used terminology is more relevant.

Third, trivially, further studies are needed. They should test - by other different statistical methods - again the intrinsic randomnesses (more generally: the intrinsic spatial distributions \[Lamb 1997\]), both for all GRBs and for the subclasses. In addition, a test of the repetition alone, i.e. a test not being influenced by positions, is highly required.

As the conclusion, the results of paper may be summarized as follows.

* We developed a method, which can verify quite simply the intrinsic randomness alone in the angular distribution of GRBs, because the method eliminates exactly the non-zero sky-exposure function.
* We rejected the null-hypothesis of the intrinsic randomness in the angular distribution of 181 intermediate GRBs on the $`96.4\%`$ confidence level.
* We rejected the null-hypothesis of the intrinsic randomness in the angular distribution of 92 ”dim” intermediate GRBs on the $`99.3\%`$ confidence level.
* We did not reject the null-hypotheses of the intrinsic randomnesses in the angular distribution of the remaining two subclasses and of the all GRBs, respectively, on the $`>95\%`$ confidence levels; the ”bright” intermediate GRBs seem to be distributed randomly, too.

We thank the valuable discussions with Drs. Michael Briggs, Peter Mészáros, László Pásztor, Dennis Sciama, Gábor Tusnády and anonymous referee. One of us (A.M.) thanks for the hospitality at Konkoly Observatory and Eötvös University. This article was partly supported by GAUK grant 36/97, by GAČR grant 202/98/0522, by Domus Hungarica Scientiarium et Artium grant (A.M.), by OTKA grant T024027 (L.G.B) and by OTKA grant F029461 (I.H.).

## FIGURES

Figure 1. The results of $`105`$ “var/mean” tests of four different cases drawn in the $`1/M`$ vs. $`\sqrt{\text{var/mean}}`$ frame. The theoretical curve $`\sqrt{11/M}`$ (solid line) is also shown. $`M`$ is the number of cells.

Figure 2. Sky distribution of 92 GRBs of ”dim” subclass of the intermediate subclass in equatorial coordinates.