format: text

text:
# Lopsided Galaxies, Weak Interactions and Boosting the Star Formation Rate

## 1 INTRODUCTION

Galaxies do not live isolated lives, but exist in the tidal fields of their environment. Arp (1966), in his Atlas of Peculiar Galaxies, lay the observational groundwork for the modern study of interacting galaxy systems by identifying many ”peculiar” systems, later interpreted as various stages of major galaxy mergers. Strong galaxy-galaxy interactions may dramatically alter the stellar populations (e.g. Larson & Tinsley 1978; Kennicutt et al. 1987; Turner 1998; Kennicutt 1998), morphology (e.g. Toomre & Toomre 1972; Hernquist, Heyl & Spergel 1993) and kinematics of galaxies (e.g. Toomre & Toomre 1972; Barnes & Hernquist 1992) driving evolution along the Hubble sequence. Massive mergers are also capable of funneling gas into the center of galaxies causing nuclear starbursts (Barnes & Hernquist 1991; Mihos, Richstone & Bothun 1992; Barnes & Hernquist 1996) and QSO activity (e.g. Sanders et al. 1988). At the present epoch, however, major mergers are fairly rare events (e.g. Kennicutt et al. 1987) and their broad evolutionary importance is unclear.

Minor mergers and, in general, weak tidal interactions between galaxies occur with much higher frequency than major ones (e.g. Lacey & Cole 1993). By weak interactions we mean those which do not destroy the disk of the “target” spiral. Hierarchical structure formation models (e.g. cold dark matter) predict that the merging histories for high mass objects today contained multiple low mass accretion events in their past (e.g. Lacey & Cole 1993). The specific roles which weak interactions play in the evolution of galaxies, however, is uncertain. Weak interactions may cause disk heating (e.g. Toth & Ostriker 1992; Quinn, Hernquist & Fullagar 1993) and satellite remnants may build up the stellar halo (e.g. Searle & Zinn 1978; Johnston, Hernquist & Bolte 1996). Kennicutt et al. (1987) studied the relation between interaction strength and star formation by making a comparison between isolated galaxies, close pairs, and galaxies from the Arp Atlas. They found that close pairs have larger values of $`EW(H\alpha _{em})`$, i.e. higher star formation rates (SFR) than isolated galaxies. While pair spacing is weakly correlated with the SFR, they could not determine the specific role of interaction strength on the SFR. Hashimoto et al. (1998) and Allam et al. (1999) both studied the Hubble type specific effects of environment on the SFR in galaxies. They found that the SFR/mass of existing stars was inversely proportional to the local galaxy density. They postulate that the anti-correlation is due partly to gas stripping and due partly to the anti-correlation of the merger cross-section with the galaxy-galaxy velocity dispersion.

There is also evidence that interactions excite nuclear activity. In their close pair and strongly interacting sample Kennicutt et al. (1987) found a strong correlation between $`H\alpha `$ emission in the disk and that in the nucleus. Such a correlation between disk and nuclear emission is supported by theoretical work; Mihos & Hernquist (1994) and Hernquist & Mihos (1995) demonstrated that minor interactions form bar instabilities in the disk which in turn funnel large amounts of gas into the nucleus. The effectiveness of this process is suppressed by the presence of a dense bulge, which prevents bar formation. Due to the numerical expense in computing high resolution N-body/SPH (collisionless particle/smoothed particle hydrodynamics) models, the exact interaction parameters which result in such activity are uncertain.

Weak interactions may also manifest themselves as kinematic or structural irregularities. Roughly $`50\%`$ of all spiral galaxies have asymmetric HI profiles and rotation curves (Baldwin, Lynden-Bell & Sancisi 1980; Richter & Sancisi 1994; Haynes et al. 1998). Baldwin et al. (1980) postulated that these asymmetries are caused by weak interactions in the galaxy’s past or by lopsided orbits. Barton et al. (1999) examined the optical rotation curves of a set of observed and simulated interacting disk galaxies. They showed that interactions can cause large scale, time dependent asymmetries in the rotation curves of their sample galaxies. Swaters et al. (1999) studied the kinematic asymmetries present in two galaxies lopsided in their optical and HI distributions. They qualitatively reproduced the kinematic asymmetries by placing closed orbits in mildly lopsided potential.

A dynamical indicator of weak interactions may be “lopsidedness.” In the context of this paper (following Rudnick & Rix 1998; hereafter RR98), lopsidedness is defined as a bulk asymmetry in the mass distribution of a galactic disk. Surveys for lopsidedness in the stellar light of galaxies were first carried out by Rix & Zaritsky (1995; hereafter RZ95) and Zaritsky & Rix (1997; hereafter ZR97). Using near-IR surface photometry of face-on spiral galaxies (spanning all Hubble types) they examined the magnitude of the $`m=1`$ azimuthal Fourier component of the I and K-band surface brightness, thus characterizing the global asymmetry of the stellar light. RZ95 and ZR97 found that a quarter of the galaxies in their sample were significantly lopsided. Using a larger, magnitude limited sample restricted to early type disks (S0 to Sab) and imaged in the R-band, RR98 found that the fraction of significantly lopsided early type disks is identical to that for late-type disks. RR98 convincingly demonstrated that lopsidedness is not an effect of dust, but is in fact the asymmetric distribution of the light from old stars and hence from the stellar mass in the disk.

Some theoretical work has been done in examining long lived $`m=1`$ modes (Syer & Tremaine 1996; Zang & Hohl 1978; Sellwood & Merritt 1994), little convincing evidence however has been put forth to show that isolated galaxies will form stable $`m=1`$ modes without external perturbations or significant counter-rotating populations. Without invoking the special cases above, long lived lopsidedness is possible if the disk resides in a lopsided potential. The question remains however: how is a lopsided potential created/maintained? Numerical simulations of hyperbolic encounters between disk galaxies fail to produce $`m=1`$ modes of amplitude $`>10\%`$ without destroying the pre-existing stellar disk (Naab, T.; private communication). Minor mergers and possibly some weak interactions therefore remain as the most probable cause of lopsidedness (RR98). Recent work has shown that perturbations in the outer halo of a galaxy may be amplified and even transmitted down into the disk (Weinberg 1994). Work by Walker, Mihos & Hernquist (1996) and ZR97 showed that the type and magnitude of lopsidedness seen in RZ95, ZR97 and RR98 is comparable to the result of the accretion of a small satellite, if the mass ratio with the main galaxy is $`1/10`$. In a preliminary study (i.e. a rigid halo with no dynamical friction) Levine and Sparke (1998) showed that lopsided galaxies may be formed by disks orbiting off center and retrograde in a flat-cored, dark matter dominated halo. They postulated that a galaxy may be pushed off center by a satellite accretion.

Using phase mixing arguments (Baldwin et al. 1980; RZ95) and analysis of N-body simulations (Walker et al. 1996; ZR97) the lifetime of lopsided features has been estimated at $`t_{lop}1`$ Gyr. That lopsidedness is transient ($`t_{lop}t_{Hubble}`$) yet common, requires that it must be recurring and therefore lopsidedness may have significant evolutionary consequences.

The current paper focuses on the impact that minor mergers (observed as lopsidedness) may have on boosting the SFR and the recent star formation history (SFH) of disk galaxies. For the purpose of this discussion, we will assume that lopsidedness is caused by minor mergers. Regardless of what causes lopsidedness however, the perturbation in the gravitational potential manifestly exists and therefore may affect the gas in the galaxy to such a degree as to boost the SFR. Indeed, ZR97 find that lopsidedness is correlated (at $`96\%`$ confidence) with the “excess” of blue luminosity (over what is predicted by the Tully-Fisher relation). Modeling the integrated spectral evolution of starbursts using evolutionary population synthesis (EPS) codes has been been well studied (e.g. Couch and Sharples 1987; Barger et al. 1996; Turner 1998) and despite its limitations, is a useful tool in determining the relative SFH over the past $`1`$ Gyr. The same techniques used to probe the SFH in massive starbursts should also work to probe the recent SFH in the putative mini-bursts which we seek to study. By comparing measured indicators of recent SF (e.g. $`EW(H\delta _{abs})`$, $`4000\mathrm{\AA }`$ break strength, A star content), to the same indicators derived from the EPS models, we will place limits on the mini-burst mass and duration.

We have obtained spatially integrated spectra of a sample of 40 late type spiral galaxies (Sab-Sbc) of varying degrees of lopsidedness with the intent of using their relative stellar populations (as determined from stellar template fitting and EPS models) to determine their recent SF histories. Unlike the mass-normalized blue light excess, $`\mathrm{\Delta }B`$ used in ZR97, our method operates independently of assumptions about a galaxy’s mass, inclination or luminosity. In addition to probing the recent ($`1`$ Gyr) SFH with studies of the stellar continuum we probe the current SFR by measuring the integrated Balmer line emission strengths (e.g. Kennicutt et al. 1994).

The layout of the paper is as follows. In §2 we discuss the sample selection, observations, data reduction and determination of galaxy lopsidedness; In §3 we examine our methods for determining the current SFR and recent SFH via the measurement of emission and stellar continuum properties as a function of lopsidedness. The discussion of the significance of these results, including the correlation of the boost parameters with other galaxy characteristics and the impact of our results on previous works (i.e. RZ95,ZR97 & RR98) is contained in §4. In §5 we present a summary and possible directions for future work.

## 2 THE DATA

### 2.1 Sample Selection

To build a sample of galaxies with varying degrees of lopsidedness, we imaged a large number of galaxies ($`N_{gal}100`$) taken from the RC3 catalog (De Vaucouleurs et al. 1991), selected according to the following criteria: apparent blue magnitude m$`{}_{B}{}^{}`$14, redshift cz$``$10,000 km/s, axis ratio $`b/a`$0.64 ($`50^{}i0^{}`$), de Vaucouleurs type $`abbc`$, and a maximum diameter of 4$`\mathrm{}`$. The median diameter of the galaxies in our sample was 1.8$`\mathrm{}`$. The magnitude and redshift limits were chosen to minimize the required exposure times. The axis ratio of the galaxies was constrained because it is hard to measure an azimuthal $`m=1`$ component in a highly inclined galaxy. Once imaging was obtained and lopsidedness determined for each galaxy (see §2.2.1), we constructed a sample for spectroscopy consisting of 40 of our imaged galaxies (see Table 1). These were selected to give the sample equal numbers of lopsided and symmetric targets.

Our sample is partially selected according to Hubble type, and we must explore the effects which morphological evolution induced by lopsidedness may have on our conclusions. Walker et al. (1996) suggested that minor mergers increase bulge size, heat the galactic disk vertically and consume a large fraction of the galaxy’s gas, eventually resulting in a low post-merger SFR. These two effects may drive galaxies towards earlier Hubble type after they experience minor mergers. Evolutionary processes such as these however become dominant either after the expected lifetime of lopsidedness ($`t1`$ Gyr), or after repeated merger events (Walker et al. 1996). During the interaction itself the irregularity in structure made manifest by lopsidedness as well as the creation of spiral arms via tidal perturbations will temporarily move a galaxy later in Hubble type. This will effectively push lopsided early type disk galaxies into our sample while pushing those of later type out of it. Due to their lower gas masses (Roberts & Haynes 1994), early type spirals have less potential for a large absolute increase in their SFR than late types. Small boosts, however, may be easily noticeable against the typically older stellar population of early type disks. The exact interplay of these two effects may bias our measurement of the relation between SFR and lopsidedness.

### 2.2 Observations

#### 2.2.1 Imaging

Our imaging data were obtained during runs at Steward Observatory’s 2.3-m Bok reflector on Kitt Peak (1997 November 6-7 and 1998 February 1-2) and at its 61-inch (1.5-m) reflector on Mt. Bigelow (1998 May 15-18). The CCD pixel scales at the Bok reflector and Bigelow reflector were $`0\stackrel{}{\mathrm{.}}4\mathrm{p}\mathrm{i}\mathrm{x}\mathrm{e}\mathrm{l}^1`$ with fields of view $`6\stackrel{}{\mathrm{.}}8\times 6\stackrel{}{\mathrm{.}}8`$ and $`3\stackrel{}{\mathrm{.}}4\times 3\stackrel{}{\mathrm{.}}4`$ respectively. The median seeing at the 2.3-m for the November and February runs were 1$`\stackrel{}{\mathrm{.}}`$3 and 1$`\stackrel{}{\mathrm{.}}`$5, respectively, while the median seeing at the 1.5-m in May was 1$`\stackrel{}{\mathrm{.}}`$3.

A Nearly-Mould $`R`$band filter ($`\lambda _{center}=650nm`$) was used at the 2.3-m and a Kron-Cousins R-band filter with $`\lambda _{center}=650nm`$ was used at the 1.5-m. The effects of wavelength on observed lopsidedness are discussed in §2.1 of RR98, and found not to be critical.

To determine the lopsidedness of a galaxy we perform an azimuthal Fourier decomposition of the R-band surface brightness, as in RR98:

$$I(R_m,\varphi )=a_o\{1+\underset{j=1}{\overset{N}{}}a_je^{i[j(\varphi _j\varphi _j^o)]}\},$$
(1)
where for each radius, $`\left|a_o\right|(R)`$ is the average intensity and $`\left|a_1\right|(R)`$ describes the lopsidedness. We define the luminosity normalized quantities $`A_1a_1/a_0`$. Instead of $`A_1(R)`$, we use $`\stackrel{~}{A}_1(R)`$ (the error corrected value which accounts for the positive definite nature of our measurements and the presence of errors; see RR98 for details) as our measure of asymmetry. We calculate the mean asymmetry of each galaxy, $`\stackrel{~}{A}_1`$ (see Table 2), from 1.5 to 2.5 disk scale lengths using the weighted average described in RR98.

#### 2.2.2 Spectroscopy

Spectra were obtained with the Bollers & Chivens Spectrograph at the 2.3-m Bok reflector during the nights, 1998 March 22-25, 1998 May 25-28, and 1998 June 29. We used a $`400gmm^1`$ in $`2^{nd}`$ order, blazed at $`3753\mathrm{\AA }`$, and a $`2.5\mathrm{}`$ slit, resulting in a resolution of $`1500`$ and a wavelength range of $`3600\mathrm{\AA }\lambda 5300\mathrm{\AA }`$. This range includes the entire Balmer series redward to $`H\beta `$, the $`4000\mathrm{\AA }`$ break, Ca H+K doublet, \[O II\]$`\lambda \lambda 3726,3729\mathrm{\AA }`$ and \[O III\]$`\lambda \lambda 4959,5007\mathrm{\AA }`$. To reduce read noise, the CCD was binned in the spatial direction; on 22 March we binned by 2 for a resultant pixel scale of $`1.67\mathrm{}\mathrm{pixel}^1`$ while on all other nights we binned by 4 for a pixel scale of $`3.33\mathrm{}\mathrm{pixel}^1`$. A CuSO4 filter was used to block $`1^{st}`$ order light. Aside from using standard stars to calibrate the relative spectral response of the instrument, no absolute flux calibration was attempted. This was done partly because of the non-photometric conditions of some of our nights and partly due to the independence of our analysis methods on absolute flux levels.

Following Kennicutt (1992), we obtained spatially integrated spectra of the galaxies by repeatedly scanning the slit across the galaxy between $`2.5R_{exp}x2.5R_{exp}`$. For each galaxy we obtained 2 exposures of 25 minutes each. To isolate the disk contributions to the integrated spectra, we also obtained a 5 minute exposure of the nucleus for each galaxy for later subtraction.

### 2.3 Reduction

#### 2.3.1 Images

The basic image reduction was carried out with standard IRAF333IRAF is distributed by the National Optical Astronomical Observatories, which are operated by AURA, Inc. under contract to the NSF. routines. The total dark current was $`1\mathrm{e}^{}/\mathrm{exposure}/\mathrm{pixel}`$ and so it was ignored. The images were flat-fielded with a combination of twilight and smoothed night sky flats. High $`S/N`$ twilight flats ($`N5`$) were used to take out small-scale variations and the lower $`S/N`$ smoothed night sky flats ($`N6`$) were used to take out large-scale sensitivity fluctuations. The large-scale flat-field quality was determined by measuring variance in the median sky level at the four corners of the images. In all images where the galaxy was small in the field of view, the images were found to be flattened to better than $`1\%`$. In some cases, the large size of the galaxies in comparison to the field of view at the 1.5-m telescope precluded such an estimate.

Point sources in the images were selected using DAOFIND, and surrounding pixels were excised in the subsequent analysis to a radius where the stellar point spread function declined to the level of the sky.

#### 2.3.2 Spectra

The basic spectral reduction was carried out with IRAF routines. The measured dark current from multiple 25 minute dark exposures was $`2\mathrm{e}^{}/\mathrm{exp}/\mathrm{pixel}`$ and so was not accounted for. Small-scale variations were removed with a combined series of 2 min. dome flats. Twilight flats were fit in the spatial direction with a $`57^{th}`$ order cubic spline at several different positions in the spectral direction to construct a map of the slit response as a function of wavelength. Non-linear pixels were interpolated over using a bad pixel mask generated from the ratio between a combined series of 2 minute and 10 second dome flats.

Removing cosmic rays from spectra without accidently removing emission lines is best automated by using the shape of the spectrum itself in the cleaning process: for a given column (spatial direction), we medianed together the target column with the eight columns on either side to construct a slit profile, $`I_{slit}`$. Using $`\chi ^2`$ minimization, we fit the target column with the the following function:

$$I_{model}(y)=a_1I_{slit}(y)+a_2y+a_3.$$
(2)
where the $`a_3`$ term accounts for the sky background. Pixels deviating by more than 7 $`\sigma `$ from the best fit are replaced with the value of the best fit model at that point. Flagged segments larger than the spectral resolution of the instrument were not removed so as to avoid the accidental cleaning of emission lines. This algorithm is very efficient and, once a suitable set of parameters (i.e. $`N_{med}`$, threshold) has been chosen, can remove almost all of the cosmic rays on the chip.

After cosmic ray removal, the spectra were rectified using He-Ar lamps taken at various times during the night. Background contributions were then subtracted. To extract the spectra, we summed the number of center rows which corresponded to $`\pm 2.5R_{exp}`$ for the disk spectra and extracted the center row only for the nuclear spectra. Using standard stars taken during the night, we then removed the spectral response of the system from the 1D, extracted spectra. Finally, the wavelength scale of each spectra was shifted to the rest frame of the galaxy.

The guided nuclear exposures were scaled by the effective exposure times on the nucleus during the drift scanning. These scaled exposures were then subtracted from the drift spectra. In this way, we separated the disk and nuclear contributions. Finally, all spectra were scaled to their median flux level.

### 2.4 Errors

The error calculation for $`\stackrel{~}{A}_1`$ is described in RR98; it accounts for both photon statistics and systematic flat-fielding uncertainties.

Using Poisson statistics to describe the error in a raw spectrum we created an “error spectrum” and performed on it all of the standard reduction steps discussed in §2.3.2 except for the cosmic ray cleaning. After normalizing the “science spectra,” the “error spectra” were scaled by the median of the “science spectra” to form a detailed representation of the error at each pixel. The “error spectra” were used in all of the following analysis steps.

## 3 SPECTRAL ANALYSIS & STAR FORMATION HISTORY DIAGNOSTICS

By examining spatially integrated spectral characteristics as a function of $`\stackrel{~}{A}_1`$, we can determine whether lopsidedness affects the SF histories of galaxies. It is difficult, even in major mergers, to invert optical spectrophotometry into a SFH estimate (e.g. Turner 1998). However, the relative strength of the current and recent SFR in different galaxies may be studied with moderate $`S/N`$, non flux-calibrated spectra (e.g. Couch & Sharples 1987; Barger et al. 1996). The equivalent width of $`H\alpha `$ in emission ($`EW(H\alpha _{em})`$) integrated over the whole disk is a robust measure of the current global SFR in terms of the previously formed stars (Kennicutt et al. 1994). Much of the Balmer emission inn a galactic disk comes from the HII regions seen in SFR regions. In this regime, the Balmer decrement relates the emission flux in $`H\beta `$ to that in $`H\alpha `$. If the continuum level at these two wavelengths is similar, then the decrement will also relate the $`EWs`$ of the two lines. Therefore, the absorption corrected $`EW(H\beta _{em})`$ (see §3.2) serves as an indirect indicator of the current SFR in the disk.

The likely lifetime of lopsidedness has been estimated as $`t_{lop}1`$ Gyr (Baldwin et al. 1980; RZ95; ZR97). To examine SF on these timescales, we need a SF tracer with a comparable lifetime. Main sequence A-stars have lifetimes of $`0.5`$ Gyr (Clayton 1983), have strong spectral signatures (e.g. strong Balmer lines, a blue continuum, and a weak $`4000\mathrm{\AA }`$ break), and so serve as appropriate probes of the recent SFH.

### 3.1 Fitting Stellar Templates

Fitting population synthesis models (e.g. Bruzual & Charlot 1993) to our spectra can give us a measure of the recent SFH. However for four reasons we choose to simply fit with empirical stellar templates (Jacoby et al. 1984): 1) The spectral resolution of available population synthesis models ($`10\mathrm{\AA }`$) is significantly less than that of our spectra ($`3\mathrm{\AA }`$). 2) The empirical templates of Jacoby et al. (1984) have a spectral resolution ($`4.5\mathrm{\AA }`$) slightly less than that of our spectra. 3) An adequate fit to the spectra can be obtained with a small number of high S/N stellar templates. To estimate the recent, relative SFH, we therefore need not deal with the complexities of the IMF and metallicity of the stellar populations.

As a qualitative measure of the relative contributions to our spectra from young and old stars, we synthesize the global absorption spectra of the galaxies in our sample with a linear combination of two stellar templates, an A0V and a G0III spectra from the Jacoby et al. (1984) stellar library. We also individually fit and subtract a $`3^{rd}`$ order polynomial of zero mean from the spectra and from each stellar template to correct for color terms (e.g. from calibration errors, from approximating the spectra with only two stellar templates). The spectra (with the polynomial subtracted) are fit by $`\chi ^2`$ minimization with the following model:

$$I_{model}(\lambda )=(C_{A0V}I_{A0V}(\lambda ))G(\sigma )+(C_{G0III}I_{G0III}(\lambda ))G(\sigma )I_{poly},$$
(3)
where $`G(\sigma )`$ and the weights, C were determined iteratively. $`C_{A0V}`$ and $`C_{G0III}`$ are the weights for the normalized stellar template spectra, $`I_{A0V}`$ and $`I_{G0III}`$. $`I_{poly}`$ is the sum of the weighted template polynomial components, $`G(\sigma )`$ represents the Doppler broadening of the stars which is convolved with the stellar templates, and $``$ is the convolution operator. For more details on the fitting procedure see Rix et al. (1995) and Turner (1998).

Independent of continuum slope, there is a unique set of line shapes and strengths for stars of each spectral type. The polynomial fit minimizes the effects of a global continuum slope on our best fit solution so that we are instead performing a global fit to the spectral features ($`4000\mathrm{\AA }`$ break, Ca H$`+`$K, Balmer series, etc.) We find that with only two, polynomial subtracted, stellar templates, we are able to consistently achieve fits with $`\chi _\nu ^22`$.

### 3.2 Emission Lines

Our template fit to the galaxy spectra should reflect only the stellar populations in the galaxy, not interstellar emission. Therefore, we first fit all portions of spectra, omitting expected emission regions, and use the residual of the best model fit to construct an emission spectrum. We remove the large scale variations in the residual by fitting it with a high order polynomial ($`50`$) at all locations where no emission is expected. We then fit each emission feature with a Gaussian. To isolate the stellar continuum, we subtract these gaussian components from the original spectra. We then re-fit our $`I_{model}(\lambda )`$ to this cleaned, pure absorption spectrum to determine $`I_{model}^{best}(\lambda )`$. This process is illustrated in Figure 1.

We measure $`EW(H\beta _{em})`$ (see Table 2) from the complementary absorption corrected emission line spectra for all of our galaxies. A linear continuum was fit on either side of $`H\beta `$ ($`4720\mathrm{\AA }\lambda _B4800\mathrm{\AA };4900\mathrm{\AA }\lambda _R4940`$). We then measured the equivalent width of the emission line integrating from $`4843\mathrm{\AA }\lambda _{line}4883\mathrm{\AA }`$. The boundaries of our integration were chosen by visual inspection to minimize noise contributions from the continuum while maximizing the amount of line flux.

### 3.3 Quantifying the A-star Fraction

We can quantify the relative A star abundances by simply using the value of $`C_{A0V}`$ (see Table 2) in $`I_{model}^{best}(\lambda )`$. Because the basis templates are normalized to their median fluxes (as are the data,) the scaling factor of the individual templates gives a measure of how much A-stars contribute to the integrated spectra.

Balmer absorption lines are strongest in A-stars, the $`4000\mathrm{\AA }`$ break is weak, and so we may also use these two features to measure the recent SFH (Couch & Sharples 1987; Barger et al. 1996). We use the equivalent width of $`H\delta `$ in absorption ($`EW(H\delta _{abs})`$) as our indicator of Balmer line strength in order to minimize emission contamination and sample a relatively isolated region of the spectrum. A linear continuum was fit on either side of $`H\delta `$ ($`4000\mathrm{\AA }\lambda _B4050\mathrm{\AA };4150\mathrm{\AA }\lambda _R4250\mathrm{\AA }`$). We measure the $`EW`$ itself from $`4080\mathrm{\AA }\lambda _{line}4120\mathrm{\AA }`$.

Instead of measuring $`EW(H\delta _{abs})`$ directly from the spectrum, we decide to measure $`EW_{mod}(H\delta _{abs})`$ (see Table 2) of the best matching template spectrum, $`I_{model}^{best}(\lambda )`$. These template spectra are in general a good match to the data and provide an essentially noiseless estimate of $`EW(H\delta _{abs})`$ with a value derived from the best fit to a broad wavelength range. When measuring $`EW(H\delta _{abs})`$ directly from the spectra, the relation between $`EW(H\delta _{abs})`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{A}_1`$ (see §4.3) clearly remains, but the scatter in $`EW(H\delta _{abs})`$ at a given $`\stackrel{~}{A}_1`$ is slightly larger.

To further parameterize the recent SFH, we use the strength of the $`4000\mathrm{\AA }`$ break ($`D_{4000}`$) (see Table 2). Our measure of the break strength is defined as:

$$D_{4000}=\frac{_{4050}^{4250}f_\lambda 𝑑\lambda }{_{3750}^{3950}f_\lambda 𝑑\lambda }.$$
(4)
The suppression of the continuum blueward of $`4000\mathrm{\AA }`$ manifested in the break is caused by the combined absorption from the Ca H$`+`$K and $`Hϵ`$ absorption line. As young, massive stars (with blue continua and weak metal lines) contribute more to the overall spectrum, $`D_{4000}`$ decreases.

## 4 RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

### 4.1 Overall Spectral Characteristics

To examine qualitatively the link between lopsidedness and SFR, we constructed composite disk spectra from the median of our nine most symmetric and nine most lopsided galaxies, and these we show in Figure 2. The lopsided composite spectrum has a much bluer continuum, stronger Balmer lines, stronger emission and a shallower $`4000\mathrm{\AA }`$ break than its symmetric counterpart regardless of exactly how many galaxies we include in the median spectrum. This result indicates that lopsidedness is in fact correlated with the recent SFH. However, a quantitative treatment of the relation is still needed.

### 4.2 Is the Current Star Formation Correlated with Lopsidedness?

Figure 3 shows the relation between $`EW(H\beta _{em})`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{A}_1`$ for the entire spectroscopic sample. Using a Spearman-rank test, we find that the distribution of $`EW(H\beta _{em})`$ vs. $`\stackrel{~}{A}_1`$ deviates from a random one at the $`99.9\%`$ level. The median $`EW(H\beta _{em})`$ of our nine most symmetric galaxies is $`3.2\mathrm{\AA }`$ while the median for our nine most lopsided galaxies is $`6.3\mathrm{\AA }`$. The correlation of $`EW(H\beta _{em})`$, and hence the current SFR, with $`\stackrel{~}{A}_1`$ is clearly shown in Fig. 3. This implies that an elevation in the instantaneous SFR occurs over the same timescales as lopsidedness, lasting maybe as long as $`1`$ Gyr after the onset of lopsidedness.

### 4.3 Is Recent Star Formation Correlated with Lopsidedness?

Figure 4 shows the relation of A-star content, $`EW_{mod}(H\delta _{abs})`$, and $`D_{4000}`$ with $`\stackrel{~}{A}_1`$. They deviate from random distributions at the $`99.997\%`$, $`99.99\%`$, and $`99.68\%`$ levels respectively. Our sample is not large enough to study these correlations separately for different Hubble types; instead we analyze the change in spectral properties of the sample as a whole. Figure 5 shows that the data are differentiated by lopsidedness in the $`EW_{mod}(H\delta _{abs})`$ vs. $`D_{4000}`$ plane. The large scatter is not surprising, as even within a single Hubble type there is a considerable variation in the specific SFHs (Kennicutt et al. 1994). Between the most lopsided and symmetric $`1/3`$ of our galaxies the median values of $`EW_{mod}(H\delta _{abs})`$ and $`D_{4000}`$ differ by, $`\mathrm{\Delta }EW_{mod}(H\delta _{abs})=2.1\pm 1.0\mathrm{\AA }`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }D_{4000}=0.24\pm 0.01`$, respectively. This defines a boost vector (Fig. 5) whose direction and magnitude characterize the difference in spectral indices between a symmetric and lopsided galaxy in our sample.

### 4.4 Constraining the Boost Mass

A number of efforts have shown that the detailed SFH, even over the last $`10^9`$ years, cannot be determined unambiguously from integrated spectra (e.g. Turner 1998 and references therein; Leonardi & Rose 1996). Instead, we restrict ourselves to a set of model SFHs consisting of a “normal” or “underlying” spiral galaxy SFH, which in lopsided galaxies has been boosted in the past by a factor $`C_{boost}`$. We then attempt to characterize the boost strength ,$`C_{boost}`$, and an associated timescale. Using the EPS code of Bruzual & Charlot, (GISSEL 1995; in preparation) we construct SEDs representing the light from the underlying stellar populations of galaxies in our sample. We specify the SFH by the birthrate parameter $`b`$ (Scalo 1986), where

$$b=\frac{\mathrm{SFR}_{current}}{\mathrm{SFR}_{past}}.$$
(5)
Assuming an exponential SFH, i.e. $`SFR(t)\mathrm{exp}\left[t/\tau (b)\right]`$, each $`b`$ has an associated timescale, $`\tau (b)`$ defined through

$$\mathrm{exp}\left[\frac{t_{gal}}{\tau (b)}\right]1=\frac{t_{gal}}{\tau (b)}\frac{1}{b},$$
(6)
with $`t_{gal}`$ as the age of the galaxy. We adopt an age of $`t_{gal}10`$ Gyr and a metallicity of $`Z=Z_{}`$. We also use the Salpeter (1955) IMF with a mass range of $`0.1M_{\mathrm{}}125M_{\mathrm{}}`$. This IMF provides a better fit than does the Scalo IMF (1986) to the global photoionization rates and to the colors of galactic disks (Kennicutt et al. 1994). Applying the Scalo IMF results in slightly lower fractional boost masses than the Salpeter IMF, but the IMF choice does not qualitatively affect our conclusions. The model SED is then given by the integral:

$$F(\tau (b),\lambda )=_0^{t_{gal}}S(t^{},\lambda )r(\tau (b),t^{})𝑑t^{},$$
(7)
where

$$r(\tau (b),t)=\beta (b)\mathrm{exp}\left[\frac{t}{\tau (b)}\right],$$
(8)
where $`\beta (b)`$ is the Hubble type dependent initial SFR of the galaxy used to normalize the present day masses to the same value, and where $`S(t^{},\lambda )`$ is the SED for a population $`t^{}`$ years after a delta function burst (Bruzual & Charlot’s simple starburst model).

We account for the change in the spectral properties by adding an exponentially declining increase ,or “boost” in SF on top of the underlying galactic SFH. We assume that the boost originated about $`5\times 10^8`$ years ago, comparable to the presumed dynamical age of the boost and the A-stars seen in Figure 2. The model SED for a galaxy with a boost population is given by:

$$F(\tau (b),\lambda )=_0^{t_{gal}}S(t^{},\lambda )\beta (b)\mathrm{exp}\left[\frac{t^{}}{\tau (b)}\right]𝑑t^{}+_0^{t_{boost}}S(t^{},\lambda )C_{boost}\mathrm{exp}\left[\frac{t^{}}{\tau _{boost}}\right]𝑑t^{}$$
(9)
.

For each Hubble type, i.e. for each $`\tau (b)`$ we construct model tracks by varying $`C_{boost}`$ and $`\tau _{boost}`$ in Equation (9), effectively adding differing boosts to the unperturbed galaxy SFH. As shown in Fig. 6, moving the underlying population later in Hubble type, or to a larger $`\tau (b)`$, shifts the tracks to greater values of $`EW_{mod}(H\delta _{abs})`$ and smaller values of $`D_{4000}`$. For a given Hubble type, varying the boost timescale changes the slope of the track of increasing boost mass.

It is interesting to note that our empirical boost vector cannot be matched directly with any of the models in the $`EW_{mod}(H\delta _{abs})`$ vs. $`D_{4000}`$ plane, suggesting that the EPS models may have systematic errors. Assuming, however, that the correct models will differ from these by a simple shift in the $`EW_{mod}(H\delta _{abs})`$ vs. $`D_{4000}`$ plane, we choose the underlying population model which minimizes the distance (in the $`EW_{mod}(H\delta _{abs})`$ vs. $`D_{4000}`$ plane) to the beginning of our observed boost vector. We then match the slope of the boost vector by varying the boost timescale. The best match we find was for $`b=0.33`$ (Hubble type Sb; Kennicutt et al. 1994) and $`\tau _{boost}=500`$ Myr. For reference, we also show the tracks for underlying galaxy spectra with $`b`$ parameters corresponding to Hubble types of Sab and Sbc ($`b=0.17`$ and $`0.84`$ respectively; Kennicutt et al. 1994). For each of these Hubble types, we plot tracks corresponding to boosts with $`\tau _{boost}=100`$ Myr and $`\tau _{boost}=500`$ Myr. We also plot the $`\tau _{boost}=100`$ Myr boost for the $`b=0.33`$ model. Measuring the projected length of the boost vector on the best model, and assuming the galaxy disk has a final stellar mass of $`10^{10}M_{}`$, we find that $`1\times 10^9M_{}`$ of stars have been formed over the the past $`0.5`$ Gyr in addition to the “underlying” SFH. This corresponds to an factor of $`8`$ increase in the SFR over the past $`5\times 10^8`$ years.

Extinction will have two primary effects on our data. It will redden the continuum from the galaxy. By allowing for a polynomial element to our template fits, we minimize the effect of the continuum slope on our results. Extinction may also affect regions of current SF; obscuring both emission lines and the continuum from massive young stars. We do not make a further account of reddening but acknowledge that our boost masses may increase if reddening is included.

### 4.5 Correlations in Disguise

It is important to verify that our result is not an artifact of correlations between the underlying SFH and lopsidedness. To determine whether mass, gas content or Hubble type effects mimic our relation between lopsidedness and SFR, we examined the distributions of $`EW(H\beta _{em})`$, $`EW_{mod}(H\delta _{abs})`$, $`D_{4000}`$, A star content and $`\stackrel{~}{A}_1`$ vs. $`L_B`$, $`M_{HI}/L_B`$ and T-type (De Vaucouleurs et al. 1991). A hidden correlation exists if any of the latter three parameters are correlated both with a SF indicator and with $`\stackrel{~}{A}_1`$.

None of the above distributions, except for $`EW(H\beta _{em})`$ and $`D_{4000}`$ vs. T-type and $`M_{HI}/L_B`$, have more than a $`1.7\sigma `$ probability of being correlated, with a $`2.6\sigma `$ significance for the four remaining correlations. Given the known correspondence between SFR and Hubble type, mean stellar population and Hubble type, and SFR and gas surface density (Kennicutt et al. 1994), these correlations with $`EW(H\beta _{em})`$ and $`D_{4000}`$ are expected. However, none of our canonical galaxy parameters show a correlation with lopsidedness at above the $`1.2\sigma `$ level and we can therefore be confident that we are seeing a true correlation between our SF indicators and $`\stackrel{~}{A}_1`$.

### 4.6 Nuclear Properties and Contributions

As an initial diagnostic of the nuclear contributions, we examine the fraction of galactic light originating in the nucleus. Even without absolute spectrophotometry, we can still examine what percentage of the total galaxy light is made up of light from the nucleus as long as the spectra are calibrated with respect to each other.

The fractional luminosity of the nucleus ranged from $`0.16.4\%`$ with a median value of $`1.7\%`$. The fractional luminosity of the nucleus is uncorrelated with $`\stackrel{~}{A}_1`$. A Spearman-Rank test showed that there was a $`52\%`$ probability that the data was drawn from a random sample. Figure 7 shows that while the nuclear $`EW(H\beta _{em})`$ vs. $`\stackrel{~}{A}_1`$, and $`EW_{mod}(H\delta _{abs})`$ vs. $`\stackrel{~}{A}_1`$ are correlated, the relations show more scatter than in the disk. The Spearman-Rank test shows that these two relations are less significantly correlated in the nucleus than in the disk by $`0.4\sigma `$ and $`0.7\sigma `$, respectively. Only for $`D_{4000}`$ vs. $`\stackrel{~}{A}_1`$ was the correlation greater than in the disk.

Our data indicate that the enhanced SF in lopsided galaxies occurs in the disk with equal or greater strength than in the nucleus. This result appears to run contrary to what numerical simulations suggest about the reactions of gas in the disk to tidal perturbations from external sources. Mihos & Hernquist (1994) and Hernquist & Mihos (1995) show that even high mass ratio mergers ($`M_{gal}/M_{sat}>10`$) can form a bar which torques gas in the disk and funnels much of it into the nucleus. However the presence of a dense bulge easily inhibits bar formation and hence gas is not funneled as effectively. Another explanation is that star formation is occurring in large amounts at the nucleus, but is partly masked by extinction. High extinction is often found to be coincident with high star formation regions in mergers and is easily capable of hiding the presence of young populations (Turner 1998).

### 4.7 The Frequency of Lopsidedness– Revisited

To estimate the volume density of lopsided galaxies from a magnitude limited sample requires the understanding of any systematic differences in luminosity between lopsided and symmetric galaxies (ZR97). Our best fit boost brightens the galaxies by 1.3, 1.0 and 0.8 magnitudes (in B, V, and R, respectively) over the brightness of the underlying population. Lopsided galaxies will hence be overrepresented in our B-band selected sample, and their volume density will be $`25\%`$ of that derived from any magnitude limited survey. To compare the frequency of lopsidedness for different Hubble types (e.g. RR98), we need to understand how this brightening depends on the “underlying” SFH. Unfortunately, we have too few galaxies in our sample to discuss Hubble type dependent effects on the boost strength and luminosity evolution.

At present, the main constraint on the frequency of lopsidedness is from its frequency in imaging samples ($`20\%`$; RR98). Coupled with our brightening estimates, we find that $`5\%`$ of the galaxies in a volume limited sample will be lopsided. Lopsidedness is likely caused by minor mergers, the frequency of which increases with look back time. Given that lopsidedness lasts for $`1`$ Gyr, we can estimate that the average galaxy has been lopsided at least once in its lifetime.

## 5 SUMMARY & CONCLUSION

To quantify the correlation between the recent SF histories of present-day spiral galaxies and their global asymmetry, we compare the integrated spectral properties of late-type spirals of varying lopsidedness. We find that the recent ($`0.5`$ Gyr) SFH and current ($`10^7`$ years) SFR are both strongly correlated with $`\stackrel{~}{A}_1`$ although there is appreciable scatter in the individual galaxy-to-galaxy properties. For $`EW(H\beta _{em})`$, reflecting the current SFR, we find a $`3.2\sigma `$ Spearman-rank correlation with $`\stackrel{~}{A}_1`$. We fit a combination of A0V and G0III stellar spectra to our galaxy spectra to quantify the relative abundance of A-stars in the disk (which traces the SFR within 0.5 Gyrs). From these best fit model spectra, $`I_{model}^{best}(\lambda )`$, we measure a number of spectral indices, and find that $`EW_{mod}(H\delta _{abs})`$, $`D_{4000}`$, and $`C_{A0V}`$ are correlated with $`\stackrel{~}{A}_1`$ at the $`3.9\sigma `$, $`3.0\sigma `$, and $`4.2\sigma `$ levels, respectively.

We measure the same spectral indices in the nucleus, and find them less correlated with $`\stackrel{~}{A}_1`$ (except $`D_{4000}`$). Unless a nuclear starburst is obscured, the disk and not the nucleus is the primary site of the SF increase we see in lopsided galaxies. This is in contrast to numerical simulations where minor mergers funnel gas into the nucleus of galaxies, causing intense starbursts (Mihos & Hernquist 1994; Hernquist & Mihos 1995). Only by the presence of a dense bulge can the formation of a bar, and the subsequent funneling of gas, be prevented.

To quantify the mass of additional stars formed in lopsided galaxies, we defined a boost vector in $`EW_{mod}(H\delta _{abs})`$ vs. $`D_{4000}`$ space, by comparing the median values of these properties for the most symmetric third and the most lopsided third of our sample. We find $`\mathrm{\Delta }EW_{mod}(H\delta _{abs})=2.1\pm 1.0\mathrm{\AA }`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }D_{4000}=0.024\pm 0.01`$. We fit this vector with an “underlying population $`+`$ boost” EPS model corresponding to a progenitor galaxy with $`b=0.33`$, $`\tau _{boost}=500`$ Myr, and boost age of $`0.5`$ Gyr. Using this best fit EPS model, we find that $`1\times 10^9M_{}`$ is formed in the boost in addition to the “underlying” SFH (assuming a final stellar mass of $`10^{10}M_{}`$). This is a considerable fraction ($`10\%`$) of the final stellar mass of the galaxy and corresponds to a factor of 8 increase in the SFR over the past $`5\times 10^8`$ years. Given the increasing merger rates and increasing gas fractions towards higher redshifts, minor merger induced SF boosts of short duration played an important role in assembling the present day stellar content of galaxies.

Finally, we address by how much the frequency of lopsidedness from a magnitude limited sample is increased by the corresponding luminosity boost. Our best fit EPS boost model corresponds to a $`1`$ magnitude brightening when galaxies becomes lopsided, increasing their presence four-fold in magnitude limited samples. We lack the statistics however, to examine any Hubble type dependent differences in the luminosity boost.

It is obvious that more work needs to be done to fully understand the cause of lopsidedness as well as the SFH of lopsided galaxies. To quantify the Hubble type specific boost in the recent SFH, a large sample should be obtained with significant numbers of galaxies in each Hubble type bin. Since imaging and spectroscopy will be needed for this project, a volume limited sample may be constructed which bypasses many of the problems encountered when selecting galaxies according to an apparent magnitude limit. Companion searches to sufficiently faint magnitudes will help to study the possible link between environment and lopsidedness (as caused by weak tidal interactions). With the recent commissioning of large area imaging and spectroscopy surveys such as Sloan Digital Sky Survey, constructing such a sample will become relatively straightforward.

Numerical simulations have shown to be a useful tool in studying the evolution of the stellar and gas distributions in minor mergers. High resolution simulations with a live halo are crucial for studying the detailed response of the disk to the merger (Walker et al. 1996). A thorough exploration of interaction parameter space is needed to quantify the structural and kinematic response in the stellar and gas components. High resolution N-body studies are also needed to explore the global stability of isolated galactic disks.

This work was completed with partial support from NSF grants AST9870151, AST9421145 and AST9900789. Greg Rudnick and H.-W. Rix would like to thank Nelson Caldwell for many valuable discussions on measuring SFHs from integrated spectra. Greg Rudnick would like to thank Craig Kulesa and Christopher Gottbrath for many useful discussions in the early hours of the morning. Greg Rudnick would also like to thank Megan Sosey and Chris Gottbrath for assisting with our observing program. Finally, we would like to thank the Steward Observatory 2.3-m telescope Operators for their assistance in the completion of this project.


text:
# Interacting Neural Networks

## I Mutual Learning, symmetric case

In this section we investigate a system of interacting neural networks as follows: several identical networks are arranged on an oriented ring. All networks receive an identical input and produce different output according to their weight vectors. Each network is trained by the output of its neighbour on the ring. This process is iterated until a stationary state is reached in which the norms and angles between the weight vectors no longer change. We are interested in the properties of this stationary state.

We consider the simplest feed-forward networks, an ensemble of $`K`$ simple perceptrons, which are represented by $`N`$-dimensional weight vectors $`𝐰_i`$ $`(i=1,\mathrm{},K)`$ and which map a common input vector $`𝐱`$ onto binary outputs $`\sigma _i=\text{sign}(𝐱𝐰_i)`$. As order parameters we use the norms $`w_i=|𝐰_i|`$ and the respective overlaps $`R_{ij}=𝐰_i𝐰_j`$ or $`\mathrm{cos}(\theta _{ij})=𝐰_i𝐰_j/w_iw_j`$. When only two perceptrons are considered, the subscript is dropped: $`\mathrm{cos}(\theta )=𝐰_1𝐰_2/w_1w_2`$. The components of the input vector (or pattern) are Gaussian with mean 0 and variance 1, yielding $`𝐱𝐱=O(N)`$.

The updates are of the form

$$𝐰_i^+=𝐰_i+(\eta _i/N)f(\sigma _i,s)s𝐱$$
(1)
for unnormalized weights or

$$𝐰_i^+=\frac{𝐰_i+(\eta _i/N)f(\sigma _i,s)s𝐱}{|𝐰_i+(\eta _i/N)f(\sigma _i,s)s𝐱|}$$
(2)
for normalized $`𝐰_i`$. The $`+`$ denotes a quantity after one learning step, $`\eta _i`$ is the learning rate, $`s`$ is the desired output, and $`f(\sigma _i,s)`$, the so-called weight function, defines the learning algorithm. We mostly use $`f=1`$ (the Hebbian rule, called $`H`$ from now on) and $`f=\mathrm{\Theta }(\sigma _is)`$ (the perceptron learning rule, abbreviated $`P`$ ), and the respective variations where the $`𝐰_i`$ are kept normalized, denoted as $`HN`$ and $`PN`$ respectively.

We derive differential equations for the order parameters in the thermodynamic limit $`N\mathrm{}`$ by taking the scalar product of the update rules and introducing a time variable $`\alpha =p/N`$, where $`p`$ is the number of patterns shown so far. We use the analytic tools which were previously developed for the teacher/student scenario . If the order parameters are self-averaging (see  for criteria of self-averaging in this context), integrating over the distribution of patterns gives deterministic differential equations for the order parameters as $`N\mathrm{}`$. The required averages are listed in the appendix.

### A Perceptron learning rule

We first restrict ourselves to two perceptrons that try to come to an agreement by learning the output of the respective other perceptron.

For rule $`P`$ with identical learning rates $`\eta _1=\eta _2=\eta `$, the update rule is

$`𝐰_1^+`$ $`=`$ $`𝐰_1+{\displaystyle \frac{\eta }{N}}𝐱\sigma _2\mathrm{\Theta }(\sigma _1\sigma _2);`$ (3)
$`𝐰_2^+`$ $`=`$ $`𝐰_2+{\displaystyle \frac{\eta }{N}}𝐱\sigma _1\mathrm{\Theta }(\sigma _1\sigma _2).`$ (4)
The sum of both vectors is conserved under this rule: if a learning step takes place, it has the same direction and absolute value, but different signs for the two vectors. This conservation can be used to link $`w_1`$ and $`w_2`$ to $`\mathrm{cos}(\theta )`$: assuming that $`w_1=w_2=w`$ and starting from $`\theta _0=\pi /2`$, simple geometry gives $`w_0/\sqrt{2}=\mathrm{cos}(\theta /2)w`$. The conservation is also visible in the differential equations that can be derived using the described formalism:

$`{\displaystyle \frac{dw_1}{d\alpha }}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\eta }{\sqrt{2\pi }}}(1\mathrm{cos}(\theta ))+{\displaystyle \frac{\eta ^2\theta }{2w_1\pi }};`$ (5)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{dw_2}{d\alpha }}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\eta }{\sqrt{2\pi }}}(1\mathrm{cos}(\theta ))+{\displaystyle \frac{\eta ^2\theta }{2w_2\pi }};`$ (6)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{dR}{d\alpha }}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\eta }{\sqrt{2\pi }}}(1\mathrm{cos}(\theta ))(w_1+w_2)\eta ^2{\displaystyle \frac{\theta }{\pi }}.`$ (7)
If the right-hand side of 5 and 6 vanish, so does 7. There is a curve of fixed points of the system given by the equation

$$w=\frac{\eta }{\sqrt{2\pi }}\frac{\theta }{1\mathrm{cos}(\theta )}.$$
(8)
Using the relation $`w=w_0/(\sqrt{2}\mathrm{cos}(\theta /2))`$, this can be solved numerically to give the fixed point of $`\mathrm{cos}(\theta )`$ as a function of the scaled learning rate $`\eta /w_0`$, as shown in Fig. 1. For small learning rates, the perceptrons come to good agreement, while large $`\eta `$ leads to antiparallel vectors.

Geometrically, this can be understood as follows: each learning step has a component parallel to the plane spanned by $`𝐰_1`$ and $`𝐰_2`$, which decreases the distance between the vectors, and a perpendicular component, which increases the distance (see Fig. 2). Equilibrium is reached when a typical learning step no longer changes the angle, i.e. the vectors stay on a cone around $`𝐰_1+𝐰_2`$. The radius of this cone increases with growing $`\eta `$.

### B Perceptron learning with normalized weights

A similar calculation can be done for the perceptron learning rule with normalized weights ($`PN`$), where the length $`w_i`$ of the weight vectors is set to $`1`$ after each step. The perceptrons move on a hypersphere of radius 1; in equilibrium, the average learning step leads back onto that sphere before the vectors are normalized again.

We derive the following differential equation for $`R=\mathrm{cos}(\theta )`$:

$$\frac{dR}{d\alpha }=(R+1)\left(\sqrt{\frac{2}{\pi }}\eta (1R)\eta ^2\frac{\theta }{\pi }\right).$$
(9)
Fixed points are $`R=1`$, $`R=1`$ and

$$\frac{\eta }{\sqrt{2\pi }}\frac{\theta }{1\mathrm{cos}(\theta )}=1.$$
(10)
It is not a coincidence that this is equivalent to (8) if $`w`$ is set to 1. The fixed point of (10) at $`R=1`$ is repulsive; the one at $`R=1`$ is unstable for $`\eta <4/\sqrt{2\pi }1.60`$. A solution of (10) can only be found for $`\eta \eta _c1.816`$, which corresponds to $`\mathrm{cos}(\theta )0.689`$.

Simulations show that the system relaxes to the fixed point given by Eq. (10) for $`\eta <\eta _c`$ and jumps to $`R=1`$ for larger $`\eta `$ (see Fig. 3). This behaviour shows the characteristics of a first-order phase transition.

Hence for small learning rates the two perceptrons relax to a state of nearly complete agreement, $`\theta 0`$. Increasing $`\eta `$ leads to a nonzero angle between the two vectors up to $`\theta 133^{}`$. At this rate the system jumps to complete disagreement, $`\theta =180^{}`$.

### C Mutual learning on a ring

The mutual learning-scenario can be generalized to $`K`$ perceptrons: perceptron $`i`$ learns from perceptron $`i+1`$ if they disagree, with cyclic boundary conditions. Under rule $`P`$, the total sum of vectors is conserved again: as many perceptrons take a step in one direction as in the opposite.

Performing the necessary averages for the equations of motion would involve Gaussian integrals over $`K1`$ correlated variables with $`\mathrm{\Theta }`$-functions – it is not clear to us whether this can be done analytically in general cases. However, we find in simulations that the fixed point for rule $`P`$ is completely symmetric: there is only one angle $`\theta `$ between all pairs of perceptrons. Assuming that relation (8) still holds, and using the conservation of $`𝐰_i`$, one can derive

$$\frac{\eta }{\sqrt{2\pi }}\frac{\theta }{1\mathrm{cos}(\theta )}=\frac{w_0}{\sqrt{1+(K1)\mathrm{cos}(\theta )}}.$$
(11)
The largest angle that the perceptrons can take is $`\mathrm{cos}(\theta )=1/(K1)`$, corresponding to a $`K`$-cornered hypertetrahedron. This happens when $`|𝐰_i|`$ is negligible w.r.t $`w_i`$. Simulations confirm that (11) holds, as can be seen in Fig. 1

Similar to the case of two networks, all perceptrons agree with each other for small learning rate $`\eta 0`$. For larger rates the system relaxes to a state of high symmetry where all mutual angles between the $`K`$ weight vectors are identical, $`\theta _{ij}=\theta `$. Note that the symmetry is higher than the topology of the flow of information (the ring). For high rates $`\eta \mathrm{}`$ the system relaxes to a state of maximal disagreement, i.e. the largest possible mutual angle $`\theta `$ that is still compatible with a symmetric arrangement.

For rule $`PN`$, the sum of the weights is not preserved. The fixed point of the dynamics follows the curve for two normalized weights described by Eq. (10) in a completely symmetric configuration. When the hypertetrahedron angle is reached and $`𝐰_i`$ vanishes, the symmetry is partly broken. There are now different angles to nearest neighbours, next-nearest neighbours etc., so the angles split up into $`(K1)/2`$ different branches for odd $`K`$ and $`K/21`$ for even $`K`$. Note that the system still has the symmetry of the ring.

With odd $`K`$, increasing $`\eta `$ increases the angle between nearest neighbours, up to some limit value. This angle is not the maximum nearest-neighbour angle allowed for by the geometric constraints, but seems to decrease with increasing K.

In the case of even $`K`$, simulations show a second transition at some higher value of $`\eta `$, where the vectors split into two antiparallel clusters, thus maximizing the nearest-neighbour angle. The learning rate at which this transition typically appears during the run of the program increases with $`N`$. The conclusion is that the antiparallel fixed point is not stable in the $`N\mathrm{}`$ limit, but de facto stable in simulations because the self-averaging property of the ODEs breaks down at this point.

One may ask which symmetries survive if the perceptrons are allowed to have different individual learning rates. A close look reveals that for rule $`P`$, there is a more general conserved quantity: $`_i^K𝐰_i/\eta _i`$. Simulations show that the angles $`\theta _{ij}`$ again relax to a completely symmetric configuration depending on the average $`\eta `$ and the initial value of the new conserved quantity, while the norms $`w_i`$ are proportional to the respective learning rates $`\eta _i`$. For rule $`PN`$, variations in the learning rates not only lead to slightly different curves for each of the angles with individually different $`\eta _c`$, they also suppress the transition to the antiparallel state that is observed for even $`K`$.

### D Hebbian learning

The reason why $`P`$ and $`PN`$ lead to antiparallel orientation of the weight vectors for larger learning rates is that they concentrate on cases where the networks disagree. Algorithms that reinforce what both networks agree on are more successful, as can be seen for rule $`H`$ for two perceptrons.

The differential equations are

$`{\displaystyle \frac{dw_i}{d\alpha }}`$ $`=`$ $`\eta \sqrt{{\displaystyle \frac{2}{\pi }}}\mathrm{cos}(\theta )+{\displaystyle \frac{\eta ^2}{2w_i}};`$ (12)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{dR}{d\alpha }}`$ $`=`$ $`\eta \sqrt{{\displaystyle \frac{2}{\pi }}}(w_1+w_2)+\eta ^2(1{\displaystyle \frac{2\theta }{\pi }}).`$ (13)
This system has no common fixed point, which means that the $`w_i`$ grow without bounds. The asymptotic behaviour can be seen from the equation for $`\mathrm{cos}(\theta )`$. Assuming that $`w_1=w_2=w`$, we find

$$\frac{d\mathrm{cos}(\theta )}{d\alpha }=\frac{\eta }{w}\frac{4}{\sqrt{2\pi }}(1\mathrm{cos}(\theta )^2)+\frac{\eta ^2}{w^2}(1\mathrm{cos}(\theta )\frac{2\theta }{\pi }).$$
(14)
By taking $`w\sqrt{2/\pi }\eta \alpha `$, the ODE leads to $`1\mathrm{cos}(\theta )\alpha ^4`$ for $`\alpha \mathrm{}`$. This means that $`\theta \alpha ^2`$.

Simulations agree with the numerical integration of Eqs. (13), with the exception of very large $`\alpha `$ and correspondingly small $`\theta `$ (see Fig. 4). This is not surprising, since the $`\alpha ^2`$-decay is an effect of patterns that are classified differently. As long as the perceptrons give the same output on all patterns, $`w_1`$ and $`w_2`$ grow linearly, but the difference $`𝐰_1𝐰_2`$ does not change, leading to $`\theta \alpha ^1`$. This is observed in simulations for small angles, where no patterns happened to be classified differently on the considered timescale. Mathematically, this is related to a breakdown of the self-averaging properties of Eqs. (13) at the point $`\theta =0`$.

## II Mutual learning, competition

In the previous section, all of the neural networks behave in the same way. Each perceptron tries to learn the output of its neighbour, and only the initial weight vectors are chosen randomly and differ from each other. Now we investigate a scenario where two networks behave differently. Network 1 is trying to simulate network 2 while 2 ist trained on the opposite of the opinion of 1. This scenario describes a competition between two adaptive algorithms. If 2 is completely successful, the overlap is $`\mathrm{cos}(\theta )=1`$, and perceptron 1 always fails in its prediction, and vice versa. A motivation from game theory can be drawn from the game of penny matching, where both players make a binary decision simultaneously. One player wins if the decisions are the same, the other if they are different.

### A Rule $`P`$

If both perceptrons use rule $`P`$ for their respective learning aim, the update rules are

$`𝐰_1^+`$ $`=`$ $`𝐰_1+(\eta _1/N)𝐱\sigma _2\mathrm{\Theta }(\sigma _1\sigma _2);`$ (15)
$`𝐰_2^+`$ $`=`$ $`𝐰_2(\eta _2/N)𝐱\sigma _1\mathrm{\Theta }(\sigma _1\sigma _2).`$ (16)
The corresponding differential equations for the order parameters are

$`{\displaystyle \frac{dw_1}{d\alpha }}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\eta _1}{\sqrt{2\pi }}}(1\mathrm{cos}(\theta ))+{\displaystyle \frac{\eta _1^2}{2w_1}}{\displaystyle \frac{\theta }{\pi }}`$ (17)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{dw_2}{d\alpha }}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\eta _2}{\sqrt{2\pi }}}(1+\mathrm{cos}(\theta ))+{\displaystyle \frac{\eta _2^2}{2w_2}}(1{\displaystyle \frac{\theta }{\pi }});`$ (18)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{dR}{d\alpha }}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\eta _1w_2}{\sqrt{2\pi }}}(1\mathrm{cos}(\theta )){\displaystyle \frac{\eta _2w_1}{\sqrt{2\pi }}}(1+\mathrm{cos}(\theta )).`$ (19)
The common fixed point for these equations is $`w_i=\sqrt{2\pi }\eta _i/4`$, $`\mathrm{cos}(\theta )=0`$. This is hardly surprising, since none of the perceptrons has a better algorithm than the other. The learning rate only rescales the weight vectors; the ratio $`\eta _i/w_i`$, which determines how fast the direction of $`𝐰_i`$ in weight space can change, is independent of $`\eta `$ at the fixed point.

### B Rule $`H`$

The picture is slightly different if both perceptrons learn from every pattern they see. The resulting differential equations are

$`{\displaystyle \frac{dw_1}{d\alpha }}`$ $`=`$ $`\sqrt{{\displaystyle \frac{2}{\pi }}}\eta _1\mathrm{cos}(\theta )+{\displaystyle \frac{\eta _1^2}{2w_1}};`$ (20)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{dw_2}{d\alpha }}`$ $`=`$ $`\sqrt{{\displaystyle \frac{2}{\pi }}}\eta _2\mathrm{cos}(\theta )+{\displaystyle \frac{\eta _2^2}{2w_2}};`$ (21)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{dR}{d\alpha }}`$ $`=`$ $`\sqrt{{\displaystyle \frac{2}{\pi }}}\eta _1w_2\sqrt{{\displaystyle \frac{2}{\pi }}}\eta _2w_1\eta _1\eta _2(\pi 2\theta ).`$ (22)
The fixed point of $`R`$ is reached if $`\theta =\pi /2`$ and $`\eta _1/w_1=\eta _2/w_2`$, i.e. the vectors are perpendicular and the scaled learning rates $`\eta _i/w_i`$ are the same for both perceptrons. Under these conditions, the equations for $`w_i`$ can be solved: $`w_i=\eta _i(\alpha +(w_{i,0}/\eta _1)^2)^{1/2}`$, so $`w_i`$ shows the $`\sqrt{\alpha }`$-scaling typical for random walks. Geometrically, the Hebb rule adds corrections to the weight vector that are on average parallel to the teacher vector. Since the teacher is moving at the same angular velocity as the student, the movement of both vectors resembles a random walk. Again, $`\eta `$ only sets the temporal and spatial scale.

### C Rule $`P`$ vs. rule $`H`$

The result of the competition becomes more interesting when both perceptrons use different algorithms. For example, we let perceptron 1 use rule $`P`$, while 2 uses $`H`$. The derivation of the differential equations is again straightforward:

$`{\displaystyle \frac{dw_1}{d\alpha }}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\eta _1}{\sqrt{2\pi }}}(1\mathrm{cos}(\theta ))+{\displaystyle \frac{\eta _1^2}{2w_1}}{\displaystyle \frac{\theta }{\pi }};`$ (23)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{dw_2}{d\alpha }}`$ $`=`$ $`\sqrt{{\displaystyle \frac{2}{\pi }}}\eta _2\mathrm{cos}(\theta )+{\displaystyle \frac{\eta _2^2}{2w_2}};`$ (24)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{dR}{d\alpha }}`$ $`=`$ $`\sqrt{{\displaystyle \frac{2}{\pi }}}\eta _2w_1+{\displaystyle \frac{\eta _1w_2}{\sqrt{2\pi }}}(1\mathrm{cos}(\theta ))+{\displaystyle \frac{\eta _1\eta _2\theta }{\pi }}.`$ (25)
They have a common fixed point defined by

$`\theta {\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{cos}(\theta )^2}{(1\mathrm{cos}(\theta ))^2}}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\pi }{4}};`$ (26)
$`w_1`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\eta _1}{\sqrt{2\pi }}}{\displaystyle \frac{\theta }{1\mathrm{cos}(\theta );}}`$ (27)
$`w_2`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\sqrt{2\pi }}{4}}{\displaystyle \frac{\eta _2}{\mathrm{cos}(\theta )}}.`$ (28)
These equations can be solved numerically and yield $`\mathrm{cos}(\theta )0.459`$, $`w_10.806\eta _1`$ and $`w_21.37\eta _2`$. Although perceptron 1 makes less use of the provided information, it wins the competition: the perceptron using rule $`H`$ has a smaller $`\eta /w`$-ratio and is thus less flexible.

### D Normalized weights

By setting the weights to 1 after each learning step, a new length scale is introduced, leading to a more complex dependence of the solution on the learning rates. For brevity, we only give the differential equations for the different learning rules and explain some common features. If both networks use rule $`PN`$, the ODE is

$$\frac{dR}{d\alpha }=\frac{1}{\sqrt{2\pi }}(\eta _1(1R)\eta _2(1+R))+\frac{R}{\sqrt{2\pi }}(\eta _1(1R)+\eta _2(1+R))\frac{R}{2\pi }(\eta _1^2\theta +\eta _2^2(\pi \theta ));$$
(29)
for rule $`HN`$ we find

$$\frac{dR}{d\alpha }=\sqrt{\frac{2}{\pi }}(\eta _2\eta _1)(R^21)\frac{R}{2}(\eta _1^2+\eta _2^2)\eta _1\eta _2(1\frac{2\theta }{\pi });$$
(30)
and if rule $`PN`$ is used by perceptron 1 and $`HN`$ by 2, the equation is

$`{\displaystyle \frac{dR}{d\alpha }}`$ $`=`$ $`R\left(\sqrt{{\displaystyle \frac{2}{\pi }}}\eta _2R{\displaystyle \frac{\eta _2^2}{2}}+{\displaystyle \frac{\eta _1}{\sqrt{2\pi }}}(1R){\displaystyle \frac{\eta _1^2}{2}}{\displaystyle \frac{\theta }{\pi }}\right)`$ (32)
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{\eta _1}{\sqrt{2\pi }}}(1R)\sqrt{{\displaystyle \frac{2}{\pi }}}\eta _2+\eta _1\eta _2{\displaystyle \frac{\theta }{\pi }}.`$
The behaviour of the fixed point is similar in all cases (see Fig. 5):

* if, say, $`\eta _2`$ is fixed and $`\eta _10`$, $`R`$ goes to a value $`R1`$. This is expected, since both $`PN`$ and $`HN`$ only achieve finite values of $`R`$ for fixed teachers.
* if both perceptrons use the same algorithm with the same learning rate, the result is $`R=0`$, as expected.
* if $`\eta _i\mathrm{}`$ for either $`i`$, $`R0`$. Infinite learning rate means that in every time step the perceptron discards all the information it previously had, replacing it with the current $`\pm 𝐱`$. Theoretically, that makes it predictable for the other network; in practice, both agents are confused. The notable exception is the case of $`PN`$ vs. $`HN`$, where a non-vanishing $`R`$ results if both $`\eta _i\mathrm{}`$ with a finite ratio $`\eta _1/\eta _2`$.

## III Confused Teacher

For any prediction algorithm there is a bit sequence for which this algorithm fails completely, with $`100\%`$ error . In fact, such a sequence is easily constructed: Just take the opposite of the predicted bit at each time step. In Ref.  a perceptron was used for the prediction algorithm.

Here we do not consider bit sequences. However, it turns out that many statistical properties of the prediction algorithm are similar when random inputs are used instead of a window of the antipredictable bit sequence. Hence we consider the following scenario: Preceptron 1 is trained on the negative of its own output. Perceptron 2 is trained on the output of perceptron 1.

This is similar to the teacher/student model where the teacher weight vector performs a random walk . But here the teacher is “confused”, it does not believe its own opinion and learns the opposite of it.

The update rule of perceptron 1 now only depends on its own output:

$$𝐰_1^+=𝐰_1(\eta /N)𝐱\sigma _1.$$
(33)
Geometrically speaking, the vector performs a directed random walk in which every learning step has a negative overlap with the current vector. An equilibrium length is reached when a typical learning step leads back onto the surface of an $`N`$-dimensional hypersphere. This fixed point of $`w_1`$ is easily calculated to be

$$w_1=\sqrt{2\pi }\eta /40.6267\eta ,$$
(34)
and the weight vector typically moves on the surface of a hypersphere of that radius.

### A Rule $`H`$

What happens if a second perceptron tries to follow the output of the confused teacher? Again, the results depend entirely on the used algorithm. The simplest case, the Hebb rule, also has a geometrical interpretation that is revealed by a look at the update rule:

$`𝐰_1^+`$ $`=`$ $`𝐰_1(\eta /N)𝐱\sigma _1;`$ (35)
$`𝐰_2^+`$ $`=`$ $`𝐰_2+(\eta /N)𝐱\sigma _1.`$ (36)
As in section I A, the sum of both vectors is constant, so there is a class of solutions to the ODEs

$`{\displaystyle \frac{dw_1}{d\alpha }}`$ $`=`$ $`\sqrt{{\displaystyle \frac{2}{\pi }}}\eta +{\displaystyle \frac{\eta ^2}{2w_1}};`$ (37)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{dw_2}{d\alpha }}`$ $`=`$ $`\sqrt{{\displaystyle \frac{2}{\pi }}}\eta \mathrm{cos}(\theta )+{\displaystyle \frac{\eta ^2}{2w_2}};`$ (38)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{dR}{d\alpha }}`$ $`=`$ $`\sqrt{{\displaystyle \frac{2}{\pi }}}\eta (w_1w_2\mathrm{cos}(\theta ))+\eta ^2`$ (39)
defined by $`w_{1,f}=\sqrt{2\pi }\eta /4`$ and $`w_{2,f}=\sqrt{2\pi }\eta /(4\mathrm{cos}(\theta ))`$. The solution is given by the initial condition, i.e. the initial sum $`|𝐰_1+𝐰_2|`$. The fixed point angle can be calculated by applying the cosine theorem to a triangle with side lengths $`w_{1,f}`$, $`w_{2,f}`$ and $`|𝐰_1+𝐰_2|`$; starting from perpendicular vectors of norm $`w_0`$, one finds

$$\mathrm{cos}(\theta )=\left(1+\frac{16}{\pi }\left(\frac{w_0}{\eta }\right)^2\right)^{1/2}.$$
(40)
Geometrically, for large learning rate $`\eta `$ both norms become much larger than $`w_0`$; the only way to achieve this while keeping the sum constant is a large angle. For small $`\eta `$, $`w_1`$ becomes very small compared to the sum, and thus to $`w_2`$. So the direction of $`𝐰_2`$ stays nearly unchanged while $`𝐰_1`$ performs its random walk, leading to nearly perpendicular vectors on average.

### B Rule $`P`$

If perceptron 2 uses rule $`P`$, the sum of the vectors is not conserved, and a simple geometrical interpretation is not possible. However, the equations of motion can still be solved:

$`{\displaystyle \frac{dw_1}{d\alpha }}`$ $`=`$ $`\sqrt{{\displaystyle \frac{2}{\pi }}}\eta +{\displaystyle \frac{\eta ^2}{2w_1}};`$ (41)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{dw_2}{d\alpha }}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\eta }{\sqrt{2\pi }}}(1\mathrm{cos}(\theta ))+{\displaystyle \frac{\eta ^2}{2w_2}}{\displaystyle \frac{\theta }{\pi }};`$ (42)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{dR}{d\alpha }}`$ $`=`$ $`\sqrt{{\displaystyle \frac{2}{\pi }}}\eta \mathrm{cos}(\theta ){\displaystyle \frac{w_1\eta }{\sqrt{2\pi }}}(1c)\eta ^2{\displaystyle \frac{\theta }{\pi }}.`$ (43)
The fixed point of $`\mathrm{cos}(\theta )`$ is given by the solution of $`4\theta /\pi =(1+\mathrm{cos}(\theta ))^2`$, independent from $`\eta `$. The numerical solution is $`\theta 0.777\pi `$, $`\mathrm{cos}(\theta )=0.761`$, $`w_2=0.552\eta `$ (in accordance with Ref. , where a special case of this problem was solved). Remarkably, the generalization error is larger than 50% - even the “smarter” perceptron learning rule predicts the behaviour of the confused teacher with less success than random guessing would.

### C Optimal learning rule

This raises an interesting question: is there any “reasonable” algorithm for perceptrons that allows them to track the confused teacher? If there are algorithms that achieve a positive overlap, one of them has to be the rule that optimizes student-teacher overlap in each time step – the optimal weight function derived by Kinouchi and Caticha :

$$f_{\text{opt}}=\frac{w_2\mathrm{tan}(\theta )}{\sqrt{2\pi }}\mathrm{exp}\left[\frac{(𝐱𝐰_2)^2}{2\mathrm{tan}(\theta )^2w_2^2}\right]\frac{1}{\mathrm{\Phi }(\sigma _1𝐱𝐰_2/(w_2\mathrm{tan}(\theta )))},$$
(44)
where $`\mathrm{\Phi }(x)=_{\mathrm{}}^x\mathrm{exp}(z^2/2)/\sqrt{2\pi }𝑑z`$. If $`w_1`$ is set to its fixed point for simplicity’s sake, calculation yields the following ODEs for $`\mathrm{cos}(\theta )`$ and $`w_2`$:

$`{\displaystyle \frac{d\mathrm{cos}(\theta )}{d\alpha }}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4\pi }}{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{sin}(\theta )^2}{\mathrm{cos}(\theta )}}I{\displaystyle \frac{2}{\sqrt{2\pi }w_1\mathrm{cos}(\theta )}};`$ (45)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{dw_2}{d\alpha }}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{w_2}{4\pi }}\mathrm{tan}(\theta )^2I,\text{ where}`$ (46)
$`I`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle _{\mathrm{}}^{\mathrm{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{2\pi }}}\mathrm{exp}\left({\displaystyle \frac{1+\mathrm{cos}(\theta )^2}{2\mathrm{sin}(\theta )^2}}x^2\right){\displaystyle \frac{1}{\mathrm{\Phi }(x\mathrm{cot}(\theta ))\mathrm{\Phi }(x\mathrm{cot}(\theta ))}}𝑑x.`$ (47)
Calculating whether $`\mathrm{cos}(\theta )=0`$ is in fact a fixed point of the confused teacher/optimal student scenario is problematic, since the optimal weight function (44) diverges at $`\theta =\pi /2`$. However, the numerical solution of Eqs. (45) and (46) shows clearly that even starting from $`\mathrm{cos}(\theta )=1`$, the system evolves towards $`\theta =\pi /2`$, which indeed seems to be the upper limit for success. Simulations of the learning process again agree weel with our theory (see Fig. 6).

### D Rule $`HN`$

There is a way of achieving a positive overlap with the confused teacher with simple learning rules: if the teacher perceptron is “slowed down” by keeping its weights normalized and setting $`\eta `$ to some small value, a student using $`PN`$ or $`HN`$ can track the teacher nearly perfectly for very small learning rates. For simplicity’s sake, let us consider $`HN`$ with identical learning rates. The differential equation for $`R`$ is

$$\frac{dR}{d\alpha }=(R+1)\left(\sqrt{\frac{2}{\pi }}(1R)\eta \eta ^2\right),$$
(48)
the fixed points are $`R=1`$ or $`R=\sqrt{2/\pi }\eta +1`$. This result is again confirmed by simulations, as seen in Fig. 7. The fixed point goes to $`1`$ as $`\eta 0`$.

## IV Perceptrons in the Minority Problem

The concept of interacting neural networks can be applied to a problem that has received much attention recently: the El Farol Bar Problem . The problem was originally inspired by a popular bar that has a limited capacity: if too many people attend, it becomes crowded, and patrons don’t enjoy the evening. In a more special formulation, each agent out of a population of $`K`$ decides in each time step (each Saturday evening) to take one of two alternatives (go to the bar or stay at home). Those agents who are in the minority win, the others lose. Decisions are made independently; the only information available to agents is the decision of the minority was in the last $`N`$ time steps.

Many papers (see e.g. ) investigated a specific realisation of the model called the Minority Game. In this model each agent has a small number of randomly chosen decision tables (Boolean functions) that prescribe an action based on the previous history, and which of the tables is used is decided according to how successful each one was in the course of the game. It turned out that the success of the game depends on the ratio between the number of players and the size of the history window, and general conclusions on the behaviour of crowded markets were drawn .

We will discuss a different approach that yields different behaviour: Each agent $`i`$ is represented by a perceptron $`𝐰_i`$ that uses the time series $`𝐒_t=(S_t,S_{t1},\mathrm{},S_{tN+1})`$ of past minority decisions to make a prediction on the next time step. It then learns the output of the minority according to some learning rule.

In our approach, all of the agents are flexible in their decisions. Each agent uses an identical adaptive algorithm which is trained by the history of the game, the only information available to each of the agents. However, each agent uses a different randomly chosen initial state of its network. If all weight vectors of the networks would collapse, all agents would make the same decision, and all would lose. If all weights remained in the random initial state, each agent would make a random guess which yields a reasonable performance of the system. Our calculation shows that training can improve the performance of the system compared to the random state.

Following Ref. , we replace the history $`𝐒_t`$ by a random vector $`𝐱`$. Simulations show that this changes the results only quantitatively, if at all.

This strategy fulfills the restrictions that the original problem posed: the agents do not communicate except through majority decisions, and individual decisions are based on experience (induction or learning) rather than perfect knowledge of the system (deduction). However, since each player uses only one strategy whose parameters can be fine-tuned to the current environment rather than a set of completely different strategies, no quenched bias in the players’ behaviour is to be expected.

### A General notes on performance

The commonly used measure of collaboration in the minority problem is the average standard deviation of the sum of outputs of all agents:

$$\frac{\sigma ^2}{K}=\frac{1}{K}(\underset{i=1}{\overset{K}{}}\sigma _i)^2.$$
(49)
If each agent makes random decisions, one gets $`\sigma ^2/K=1`$. The probability of two perceptrons $`i`$ and $`j`$ giving the same output on a random pattern is $`1\theta _{ij}/\pi `$. Any ensemble of vectors $`𝐰_i`$ can be thought of as centered around a center of mass $`𝐂=_{i=1}^K𝐰_i/K`$ with a norm $`C`$ (for random vectors of length 1, $`C`$ would be of order $`\sqrt{K}`$). The weights can then be written as $`𝐰_i=𝐠_i+𝐂`$, with $`_{i=1}^K𝐠_i=\mathrm{𝟎}`$. For the sake of simplicity, we will assume a symmetrical configuration with $`g_i=1`$ and $`𝐠_i𝐠_j=1/(K1)`$ for $`ij`$. (An ensemble of randomly chosen vectors of norm 1 would give $`g_i^2=11/K\pm O(1/\sqrt{N})`$ and $`𝐠_i𝐠_j=1/K\pm O(1/\sqrt{N})`$.)

The average overlap between different weights is now $`R=C^21/(K1)`$, their average norm $`w_i=\sqrt{𝐂^2+1}`$. With this, Eq. (49) can be evaluated:

$`{\displaystyle \frac{\sigma ^2}{K}}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{K}}{\displaystyle \underset{i=1}{\overset{K}{}}}1+{\displaystyle \underset{i=1}{\overset{K}{}}}{\displaystyle \underset{ji}{\overset{K}{}}}\text{sign}(𝐱𝐰_i)\text{sign}(𝐱𝐰_j)_𝐱`$ (50)
$`=`$ $`1+(K1)\left(1{\displaystyle \frac{2}{\pi }}\mathrm{arccos}\left({\displaystyle \frac{C^21/(K1)}{C^2+1}}\right)\right).`$ (51)
If $`C`$ is set to 0 and $`K`$ is large, a linear expansion of the arccos term in Eq. (51) gives $`\sigma _{opt}^2/K12/\pi 0.363`$. The small anticorrelations (of order $`1/K`$) between the vectors suffice to change the prefactor in the standard deviation.

If $`C`$ is much larger than $`g`$, there is a strong correlation between the perceptrons. Most perceptrons will agree with the classification by the center of mass $`\text{sign}(𝐱𝐂)`$. As $`C\mathrm{}`$, $`\sigma ^2/K`$ saturates at $`K`$.

### B Hebbian Learning

Now each perceptron is trying to learn the decision of the minority according to rule $`H`$. $`S`$ denotes the majority decision:

$$𝐰_i^+=𝐰_i\frac{\eta }{M}𝐱\text{sign}(\underset{j=1}{\overset{N}{}}\text{sign}(𝐱𝐰_j))=𝐰_i\frac{\eta }{M}𝐱S.$$
(52)
As the same correction is added to each weight vector, their mutual distances remain unchanged. Only the center of mass is shifted. We now treat $`C`$ as an order parameter:

$`𝐂^+`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{i=1}{\overset{K}{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{𝐰_i}{N}}{\displaystyle \frac{\eta }{M}}𝐱s.`$ (53)
$`C_{}^{2}{}_{}{}^{+}`$ $`=`$ $`C^2{\displaystyle \frac{2\eta }{N}}𝐱𝐂S+{\displaystyle \frac{\eta ^2}{N}}.`$ (54)
To average over $`𝐱𝐂S`$ in the thermodynamic limit, we introduce a field $`h=𝐱𝐂`$ and average over $`𝐱`$ for fixed $`h`$:

$$𝐱𝐂S=|h|\text{sign}(\underset{i=1}{\overset{K}{}}\text{sign}(h)\text{sign}(𝐱𝐠_i+h)).$$
(55)
The quantity $`\text{sign}(h)\text{sign}(𝐱𝐠_i+h)`$ is a random variable with mean $`\text{erf}(|h|/\sqrt{2})`$ and variance $`1\text{erf}(|h|/\sqrt{2})^2`$. In a linear approximation for small $`|h|`$, we replace this by mean $`\sqrt{2/\pi }|h|`$ and variance 1.

For sufficiently large $`K`$, one can use the Central Limit Theorem to show that $`_{i=1}^K\text{sign}(h)\text{sign}(𝐱𝐠_i+h)`$ becomes a Gaussian random variable with mean $`\sqrt{2/\pi }K|h|`$. Since the terms of the sum in (55) are anticorrelated rather than independent, the variance turns out to be $`(12/\pi )K`$ rather than $`K`$, analogously to Eq. (51). This yields

$$\text{sign}(\underset{i=1}{\overset{K}{}}\text{sign}(h)\text{sign}(𝐱𝐠_i+h))=\text{erf}(\sqrt{K/(\pi 2)}|h|).$$
(56)
Since $`h`$ is a Gaussian variable with mean $`0`$ and variance $`C^2`$, the average over $`hS`$ can now be evaluated. We find the following differential equation for the norm of the center of mass:

$$\frac{dC^2}{d\alpha }=\frac{4\eta }{\sqrt{2\pi }}\sqrt{\frac{2K/(\pi 2)}{1+2K(\pi 2)C^2}}C^2+\eta ^2.$$
(57)
The fixed point of $`C`$, which can be plugged into Eq. (51) to get $`\sigma ^2/K(\eta ,K)`$, is

$$C=\frac{\sqrt{\pi }}{4}\eta \sqrt{1+\sqrt{1+\frac{16(\pi 2)}{\pi K\eta ^2}}}$$
(58)
(see Figs. 8 and 9).

If $`C`$ is large, the majority of perceptrons will usually make the same decision as $`𝐂`$, which then behaves like the single confused perceptron: $`C\sqrt{2\pi }\eta /4`$ if $`K\eta ^2\mathrm{}`$ – compare to Eq. (34).

For small $`C`$, the majority may not coincide with $`\text{sign}(𝐱𝐂)`$. In that case, the learning step has a positive overlap with $`𝐂`$, leading to $`C\sqrt{\eta }`$ as $`\eta 0`$.

The derivation given is only correct if $`N\mathrm{}`$ and $`K`$ is large. However, simulations show very good agreement even for $`K=21`$ and $`N=100`$ (see Fig. 9). For a smaller number of dimensions $`N`$, there is even a tendency towards smaller $`\sigma ^2/K`$. This can be understood in the extreme case of $`N=1`$: Each perceptron is characterized by one number; the outcome is decided by whether the majority of numbers is smaller than $`0`$ or larger, regardless of the “pattern”. The learning step consists of shifting all numbers up or down by the same amount. In the case of small $`\eta `$, the fixed point is characterized by $`(N1)/2`$ players firmly on one side of the origin, $`(N1)/2`$ on the other side, and one unfortunate loser who changes sides at every step.

Interestingly, if the time series generated by the minority decisions is used as patterns, the functions $`\sigma ^2(C)`$ and $`C(\eta )`$ are quantitatively different from those found for random patterns. However, in the final result $`\sigma ^2(\eta )`$ no disagreement can be noticed (see Fig. 9).

The presented Hebb algorithm may appear too simplistic and the chosen initial conditions too artificial. It must therefore be emphasized that there are other learning algorithms that lead to the same anticorrelated state. In particular, a variation of rule $`PN`$ has proven successful in simulations (see Fig. 10): all perceptrons that are on the minority side take a learning step, and weights are kept normalized. The regular rule $`P`$ where perceptrons on the majority side move, however, leads to strong clustering and $`\sigma ^2/KK`$.

The absence of scaling behaviour if $`N>K`$ and the fact that smaller dimensions (corresponding to smaller memory of the time series) even improve the results show that the conclusions drawn from the “conventional” Minority Game do not apply to all conceivable strategies for the Bar Problem. We think that the dependence of $`\sigma ^2/K`$ on the ratio between available strategies and players is caused by the use of quenched strategies and will not arise in any scenario in which agents stick to one strategy which is fine-tuned by some learning process.

The case of $`N=1`$ implies that there are strategies that give $`\sigma ^2/K1/K`$. We will elaborate this point in another publication.

## V Summary

We have investigated several scenarios of mutually interacting neural networks. Using perceptrons with well-known on-line training algorithms in the limit of infinite system size, we derived exact equations of motion for the dynamics of order parameters which describe the properties of the system. In the first scenario a system of $`K`$ perceptrons is placed on a ring. All perceptrons receive the same input and each perceptron is trained by the output of its neighbour on the ring. We have used two well-known training algorithms: the perceptron rule which concentrates on examples where the networks disagree, and the Hebbian rule where each example changes the weights. We find that with unnormalized weights the system relaxes to a stationary state of high symmetry: each perceptron has the same overlap with all others. The overlap depends on the learning rate: with increasing $`\eta `$ the perceptrons increase their mutual angle as much as possible.

For the perceptron learning rule with normalized weights we find phase transitions with increasing learning rate $`\eta `$. For large values of $`\eta `$, the symmetry is broken, but the symmetry of the ring is still conserved. For the Hebbian rule we find a different behaviour. The lengths of the weights diverge, the mutual angles shrink to zero and the perceptrons eventually come to perfect agreement in the limit of infinitely many training examples.

We furthermore study the behaviour of perceptrons that pursue competing learning aims for different learning algorithms. If two perceptrons follow mutually exclusive learning aims using the same algorithm, a draw results. If they use different rules, the outcome depends on factors like the rescaled learning rate $`\eta /w`$. We find that a perceptron that learns the opposite of its own prediction cannot be tracked by a student perceptron that learns the positive output of the confused teacher: all rules achieve a negative overlap.

Finally an ensemble of interacting perceptrons is used to solve a model of a closed market. Each agent uses a perceptron which is trained on the decision of the minority. Our analytic solution shows that the system relaxes to a stationary state which yields a good performance of the system for small learning rates $`\eta `$. In contrast to the minority game of Refs.  our approach leads to identical profits for all agents in the long run. In addition, the performance of the algorithm is insensitive to the size of the history window used for the decision.

This paper is a first step towards more complex models of interacting neural networks. We have presented analytically accessible cases which may open the road to a general understanding of interacting adaptive systems with possible applications in biology, computer science and economics.

## VI Acknowledgement

All authors are grateful for support by the GIF. This paper also benefitted from a seminar at the Max-Planck-Institut komplexer Systeme, Dresden. We thank Johannes Berg, Michael Biehl, Liat Ein-Dor, Andreas Engel, Georg Reents, and Robert Urbanczik for helpful discussions.

## VII Appendix

The following averages are used in our calculations to derive deterministic differential equations from the update rules. The angled brackets denote averages over isotropically distributed pattern vectors. In the limit $`N\mathrm{}`$, $`𝐰_1𝐱`$ and $`𝐰_2𝐱`$ are correlated gaussian random variables, and the averages can be calculated by integrating over their joint probability distribution with appropriate boundaries. In many cases, simple geometrical calculations give the same result with less effort.

$`𝐱𝐰_1\sigma _2\mathrm{\Theta }(\sigma _1\sigma _2)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{w_1}{\sqrt{2\pi }}}(1\mathrm{cos}(\theta ));`$ (59)
$`𝐱𝐱\mathrm{\Theta }(\sigma _1\sigma _2)`$ $`=`$ $`N{\displaystyle \frac{\theta }{\pi }};`$ (60)
$`𝐱𝐰_1\sigma _1\mathrm{\Theta }(\sigma _1\sigma _2)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{w_1}{\sqrt{2\pi }}}(1+\mathrm{cos}(\theta ));`$ (61)
$`𝐱𝐱\mathrm{\Theta }(\sigma _1\sigma _2)`$ $`=`$ $`N(1{\displaystyle \frac{\theta }{\pi }});`$ (62)
$`𝐱𝐰_1\sigma _1`$ $`=`$ $`\sqrt{{\displaystyle \frac{2}{\pi }}}w_1;`$ (63)
$`𝐱𝐰_1\sigma _2`$ $`=`$ $`\sqrt{{\displaystyle \frac{2}{\pi }}}w_1\mathrm{cos}(\theta );`$ (64)
$`f_{\text{opt}}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{2w_2}{\sqrt{2\pi }}}{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{sin}(\theta )^2}{\mathrm{cos}(\theta )}};`$ (65)
$`f_{\text{opt}}𝐱𝐰_2\sigma _1`$ $`=`$ $`0;`$ (66)
$`I`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle _{\mathrm{}}^{\mathrm{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{2\pi }}}\mathrm{exp}\left({\displaystyle \frac{1+\mathrm{cos}(\theta )^2}{2\mathrm{sin}(\theta )^2}}x^2\right)\left(\mathrm{\Phi }(x\mathrm{cot}(\theta ))\mathrm{\Phi }(x\mathrm{cot}(\theta ))\right)^1𝑑x;`$ (67)
$`f_{\text{opt}}^2`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{w_2^2}{2\pi }}\mathrm{tan}(\theta )^2I;`$ (68)
$`f_{\text{opt}}𝐱𝐰_1\sigma _1`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{w_1w_2}{2\pi }}{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{sin}(\theta )^2}{\mathrm{cos}(\theta )}}I.`$ (69)


text:
# UV Light Curves of Thermonuclear Supernovae

## 1 Introduction

Early ultraviolet (UV) emission from Type Ia supernovae (SNe Ia) is poorly known by now. Only a very few brightest events have been observed a decade ago with the International Ultraviolet Explorer (IUE). Although observational data were sometimes quite fascinating, as in the case of SN 1990N (Leibundgut et al. leietal (1991), Jeffery et al. jefetal (1992)), an amount of observed UV light curves and spectra remained too small to reveal what is typical for the UV emission from SNe Ia and how individual features of the explosion can be displayed.

The Hubble Space Telescope (HST) has slightly improved the situation. More data of better quality were obtained. This allowed theorists to make a comparison between the predictions of explosion models and the observational results. Reproduction of supernova UV emission is a good test for an explosion model because this spectral region reflects more directly the distribution of $`{}_{}{}^{56}\mathrm{Ni}_{}^{}`$ synthesized during the explosion and the conditions in the exploding star. Several models were already used to fit the observed spectra. Analyses of early and late emission from SNe Ia by Kirshner et al. kiretal (1993), Ruiz-Lapuente et al. rulaetal (1995), Nugent et al. nugetal (1997) show that Chandrasekhar-mass models DD4 (Woosley & Weaver 1994b ) and W7 (Nomoto et al. nthyo (1984)) and sub-Chandrasekhar-mass helium detonation models (see Livne liv (1990); Livne & Glasner ligl (1991); Woosley & Weaver 1994a ; Höflich & Khokhlov hoekho (1996)) can reproduce some features of UV spectra of SNe Ia quite well.

In this Letter we calculate the light curves of the similar models and discuss how they differ from each other in several UV wavelength ranges. It is quite probable that more observational data will soon be available with the HST, and that the Far-Ultraviolet Spectroscopic Explorer (FUSE), operating at shorter wavelengths (Sembach sem (1999)), will be able to obtain light curves and spectra of SNe Ia in the range where they were not observed so far. The analysis proposed here can help to distinguish which mode of explosion is actually realized in the SNe Ia.

## 2 Models and method of calculations

In our analysis we have studied two Chandrasekhar-mass models: the classical deflagration model W7 (Nomoto et al. nthyo (1984)) and the delayed detonation model DD4 (Woosley & Weaver 1994b ), as well as two sub-Chandrasekhar-mass models: helium detonation model 4 of Livne & Arnett (liar (1995)) (hereafter, LA4) and low-mass detonation model with low $`{}_{}{}^{56}\mathrm{Ni}_{}^{}`$ production (hereafter, WD065; Ruiz-Lapuente et al. rula91bg (1993)). Main parameters of these models are gathered in the Table 1, as well as the values of rise time and maximum UV fluxes in the standard IUE range (just as it is the most typical form of representation; e.g., Pun et al. punetal (1995)) and in the FUSE range. For definiteness the distance to a supernova is supposed to be 10 Mpc.

The method used here for light curve modeling is multi-energy group radiation hydrodynamics. Our code stella (Blinnikov & Bartunov blba (1993); Blinnikov et al. bebpw (1998)) solves simultaneously hydrodynamic equations and time-dependent equations for the angular moments of intensity averaged over fixed frequency bands, using up to $`200`$ zones for the Lagrangean coordinate and up to 100 frequency bins (i.e., energy groups). This allows us to have a reasonably accurate representation of non-equilibrium continuum radiation in a self-consistent calculation when no additional estimates of thermalization depth are needed. Local Thermodynamic Equilibrium (LTE) for ionization and atomic level populations is assumed in our modeling. In the equation of state, LTE ionization and recombination are taken into account. The effect of line opacity is treated as an expansion opacity according to the prescription of Eastman & Pinto (easpi (1993)) and Blinnikov (blinn96 (1996, 1997)).

## 3 Results and discussion

The main results of our calculations are presented in Figs. 12. The light curves of our models are shown in near and far UV ranges. The fluxes are plotted as they would be seen for supernovae at distance of 10 Mpc. Declared sensitivity of FUSE is $`310^{15}`$ ergs s-1 cm-2 Å-1, and sensitivity of HST (at working range of wavelengths almost equal to that of IUE) is roughly $`10^{16}`$ ergs s-1 cm-2 Å-1. This allows us to estimate that SNe Ia could be observed up to 300 Mpc in the near UV and up to 30 Mpc in the far UV (with HST and FUSE, respectively). Yet it should be noticed that in the far UV SNe Ia are bright enough only during several days, and their flux declines very quickly after the maximum light, so the probability of discovering for them is quite low, unless they are very close to us (a few Mpc or even less).

Differences in the shapes and absolute brightness of SNe Ia light curves become more pronounced in this spectral range, especially in far UV, for different modes of explosion. As we have found in our paper (Sorokina et al. sbb (2000)), the light curves of W7 and DD4 are very similar in B band close to the maximum light and differ drastically several days after it. We can see likely behaviour in near-UV wavelengths (Fig. 1). In far UV, differences grow up, so that even at maximum light one can distinguish between two Chandrasekhar-mass models. Such a behaviour can most probably be explained by different distribution of $`{}_{}{}^{56}\mathrm{Ni}_{}^{}`$ inside debris of exploded star. In our case, the fraction of $`{}_{}{}^{56}\mathrm{Ni}_{}^{}`$ decreases more sharply in the model W7, and this perhaps leads to the faster decline of its light curve.

The shape of the UV light curve of WD065 is conformal to those of Chandrasekhar-mass models, though it shows much lower absolute flux (due to an order-of-magnitude lower $`{}_{}{}^{56}\mathrm{Ni}_{}^{}`$ mass). The light curve maxima of the Chandrasekhar-mass models are shifted progressively towards later epochs for longer wavelengths remaining almost equal in brightness, while the WD065 maxima occur at nearly the same epoch for all of the IUE and FUSE ranges, and the emission virtually disappears at the shorter edge of the spectrum (see Table 1 and Fig. 1), since such a small amount of $`{}_{}{}^{56}\mathrm{Ni}_{}^{}`$ as present in this model is not able to maintain high temperature inside the ejecta. The emission of WD065 in far UV becomes so weak that it could be detected only if supernova exploded in our neighbourhood (not farther than a few hundreds of parsecs from us).

The model LA4 (helium detonation in outer layers) is apparently distinguished by its rise time in the shortest spectral bands. The most interesting feature of this light curve is its clear two-maxima structure in the short LWP range. The earliest spike of the far-UV radiation is due to the outer $`{}_{}{}^{56}\mathrm{Ni}_{}^{}`$ layer specific for this model. It is well known that those helium detonation models are too blue near visual maximum (Höflich & Khokhlov hoekho (1996); Ruiz-Lapuente et al. rulaproc (1999)). This is also confirmed by our UBVRI computations (Sorokina et al. sbb (2000)). In far UV, LA4 looks out not so hot, yet it can be detected in far UV earlier than in visual light.

One should be cautious applying our results directly to observations in UV range. A large fraction of SNe Ia shows a significant correlation with star-forming regions (Bartunov et al. btsf (1994); McMillan & Ciardullo mcmici (1996); Bartunov & Tsvetkov batsv (1997)). The circumstellar medium in those regions can absorb radiation, especially in UV band. In this case our predictions should be used as an input for calculations of reprocessing of UV photons to redder wavelengths.

Certainly, more thorough investigation of the UV emission from SNe Ia has to be done. It is still necessary to calculate UV light curves of wider range of SNe Ia models and to predict their UV spectra. This work is worth doing because, as it is seen from this Letter, near-UV and far-UV observations with modern UV space telescopes, when combined with standard UBVRI study, could be used as an efficient means to distinguish modes of explosion of thermonuclear supernovae leading us to better understanding of these phenomena.

###### Acknowledgements.

We would like to thank W. Hillebrandt, who has encouraged us to do this work. We are grateful to E. Livne, K. Nomoto, P. Ruiz-Lapuente, and S. Woosley for constructing the SNe Ia models used in our analysis, and we are thankful to P. Lundqvist for his comments on the possibilities of modern space telescopes. The work of SB is supported in Russia by ISTC grant 370–97, in Germany by MPA, and in Japan by ILE, Osaka University.