text:
# A Limit on the Number of Isolated Neutron Stars Detected in the ROSAT Bright Source Catalog

## 1 Introduction

Initial estimates of the number of isolated neutron stars (INSs), accreting through the Bondi (gravitational) mode Bondi & Hoyle (1944); Bondi (1952), which would be detected in the ROSATAll-Sky Survey (RASS) were of the order $`10^3`$$`10^4`$ Treves & Colpi (1991); Blaes & Madau (1993); Madau & Blaes (1994). As observations of higher mean velocities in the radio pulsar population (Lorimer et al., 1997; Hansen & Phinney, 1997; Cordes & Chernoff, 1998, and references therein) were considered, the predicted number of detectable INSs accreting from the ISM decreased dramatically ($``$$`10^2`$$`10^3`$; Colpi et al. (1998); Neuhäuser & Trümper (1999); Treves et al. (2000)). This is because the Bondi accretion rate is a strong function of the NS velocity through the interstellar medium (ISM; $`\dot{M}v^3`$).

Considerable efforts to discover INSs have been applied. Many have used the ROSAT/All-Sky Survey Bright Source Catalog (RASS/BSC; Voges et al. (1999)), which contains the 18,811 brightest X-ray sources detected in a survey with the ROSAT/PSPC in 1990/1991, with positional certainties of $``$12″ (1$`\sigma `$). The survey covers 92% of the sky in the 0.1-2.4 keV band; the RASS sources are complete down to a PSPC countrate of 0.05 c/s, which corresponds to a flux of 5.4$`\times 10^{13}`$ $`\mathrm{erg}`$$`\mathrm{cm}^2`$$`\mathrm{s}^1`$ assuming an unabsorbed power-law spectrum of photon index $`\alpha =1`$ (or a flux of 2$`\times 10^{13}`$ assuming $`\alpha =3`$). These efforts searched for error boxes which are “empty” of off-band counterparts. INSs have an X-ray to optical ratio of $``$$`10^5`$, substantially greater than any other class of X-ray sources. The X-ray to optical ratio of a thermal spectrum INS is roughly Treves et al. (2000):

$$\frac{L_X}{L_{\mathrm{opt}}}10^{5.5+3\mathrm{log}\left(\frac{kT_{\mathrm{eff}}}{100\mathrm{e}\mathrm{V}}\right)}$$
(1)
which is orders of magnitude larger than for other known X-ray source classes; for example, stars typically have $`L_X`$/$`L_{\mathrm{bol}}`$$`{}_{}{}^{}{}_{}{}^{<}`$$`10^3`$, AGN are $``$0.1-10, and white dwarfs and X-ray binaries are typically 10–100, but can be as high as 1000. To date, three bright INSs have been optically detected near their expected flux level Walter & Matthews (1997); Kulkarni & van Kerkwijk (1998); Kaplan et al. (2002). No identified INS has exhibited intensity variability on any timescale.

The predictions for the number of INSs to be detected contrast with only seven such objects reported so far Treves et al. (2000). This number is so low, that it has been suggested that these INSs are powered not by accretion, but by hot cores of young, cooling NSs Neuhäuser & Trümper (1999); Popov et al. (2000a). We argue in § 2 that previous analyses have not quantitatively justified their source confusion rates, and the resultant limits on the number of INSs in the RASS/BSC should be held in some doubt.

The INSs which were first cataloged in the RASS/BSC all used ROSAT/HRI localizations ($``$1″) to exclude nearby possible counterparts, and so concentrated on the brightest sources in the RASS. Confusion of optical sources due to the large error-circles of the RASS/BSC hampers INS identification as we discuss in the following section.

In the present work, we obtained a selection of candidate INSs through an expanded application of statistical cross identification Rutledge et al. (2000), which we summarize in §3 using optical, radio and infrared catalogs. We then present the list of thirty-two candidate INSs, and proceed to exclude sources as INSs when they are shown to be X-ray variable, or have $`L_X`$/$`L_{\mathrm{bol}}`$$`<`$$`10^4`$. Some are excluded from existing identifications of X-ray variable sources in the literature. Chandra X-ray observations which provide arcsec localizations which result in counterpart identifications – or X-ray flux upper-limits, indicating a variable X-ray source – are described in §4.1; we also describe examination of archival X-ray observations of four sources with ROSAT/HRI, which provide localizations which are also sufficient for identification, or X-ray upper limits for variable soruces. In §5, we estimate the upper-limit on the number of INSs detected in the RASS/BSC based on our analysis results, and compare this limit with a naive and optimistic model for a cooling NS source population. A summary and conclusions are given in §6.

## 2 Source Confusion in Previous Work

The observational problem of discovering INSs (for a recent review, see Treves et al. (2000)) from the RASS/BSC is severely hampered by source confusion Motch et al. (1997a); Zickgraf et al. (1997); Bade et al. (1998); Danner (1998a, b); Thomas et al. (1998). For example, the average number of optical sources in the USNO-A2 catalog in a 3$`\sigma `$ uncertainty region of a RASS/BSC source is $``$3, and is often much greater in the Galactic plane. However, at such source densities, an arcsec localization which places the X-ray source coincident with an off-band counterpart results in a probability of random alignment of $`\mathrm{exp}(\rho \pi (1^{\prime \prime })^2)=`$0.3%. Thus, an arcsec localization coincident with an optical source in the USNO-A2 argues for association, with a probability of spurious association at the level of 0.3%. For the faintest X-ray sources in the RASS/BSC, the implied $`L_X/L_{\mathrm{opt}}`$ for the faintest optical sources in USNO-A2 is $``$few – comparable to what is expected for AGN (0.1-10). At higher optical fluxes, the values of $`L_X/L_{\mathrm{opt}}`$ approach that of stellar coronae ($`10^4`$$`10^3`$).

Previous INS searches took the following approach in identifying new INSs: (1) examine off-band source catalogs, images, or spectroscopic surveys for objects which are spatially close to the X-ray source position; (2) all such off-band sources are individually evaluated to be either a plausible counterpart or not; (3) if a plausible counterpart is found, the X-ray source is considered identified as a class which is not an INS.

This approach is a reasonable means for searching for INSs. However, none of the previous works quantitatively assess their confusion rate – specifically: if an INS were placed in one of their fields, what is the probability that they would mis-identify it with a plausible, but incorrect, counterpart?

While the discovered INSs place a lower-limit on the number of INSs in the sky, the upper-limit on INSs in the sky cannot be quantified without knowing the probability of mis-identification. We therefore question the reliability of upper-limits derived from these works. This statistical question is the basis upon which all conclusions regarding the INS population rests Neuhäuser & Trümper (1999); Treves et al. (2000); Popov et al. (2000b).

Neuhäuser et al.(Neuhäuser & Trümper (1999); N99 hereafter) examined the observed log N-log S curve of INSs, to compare the relative contribution to this curve of INSs powered by Bondi-Hoyle accretion from the inter-stellar medium (ISM) vs. those powered by cooling from their recent ($`<`$$`10^6`$ yr) SNe. Citing previous work Bade et al. (1998); Motch et al. (1997a, b), N99 estimated a 2% mis-identification rate; however, we find no quantitative support for this estimation in any of the cited works. The limits derived by N99 for the number of cooling or accreting INSs therefore function only as lower-limits.

We therefore set out in the present work to understand our mis-identification rate, so that we may robustly place an upper limit on the number of INSs in the ROSAT Bright Source Catalog.

## 3 Candidate Source Selection

To produce this selection, we performed a statistical cross-association between the RASS/BSC X-ray sources and sources from three large-area catalogs:

* The National Radio Astronomy Observatory 111The National Radio Astronomy Observatory is a facility of the National Science Foundation operated under cooperative agreement by Associated Universities, Inc. (NRAO) Very Large Array (VLA) Sky Survey (NVSS) catalog Condon et al. (1998), which contains 1.4 GHz radio sources observed with the Very Large Array radio observatory between 1993 September and 1996 October, with a sensitivity of $``$0.3 mJy, containing $``$2$`\times 10^6`$ objects.
* The Infrared Astronomical Satellite (IRAS) Point Source Catalog (v. 2.0) contains $``$250,000 objects. We use the IR source position, positional uncertainty, and the 12 $`\mu `$m flux density for source flux. The position was taken as the source centroid (precessed from B1950.0 to J2000.0 using the IDL routine jprecess from the ASTRO package), and the positional uncertainty was taken as the major axis of the elliptical positional uncertainties.
* The United States Naval Observatory A2.0 (USNO-A2) catalog contains $``$5$`\times 10^8`$ optical sources, found by scanning optical plates from the Palomar All Sky Survey (POSS-I) at $`\delta >30^{}`$, and from the Science Research Council $`J`$ (SRC-J) and European Southern Observatory (ESO-R) survey at declinations below that. We make use of the optical source position, positional uncertainty, and quoted $`B`$ magnitude. The positional uncertainty of the USNO-A2 catalog is generally $``$0.25″, although for objects brighter than 11 magnitude, which saturate the plates, the astrometry is accurate to $``$2″. We adopted 1″ as the positional uncertainty for each optical source. Based upon an initial investigation, we considered only USNO-A2 sources which were $`<`$75″ from the X-ray source position. The photometric accuracy is estimated as internally 0.15 mag, with systematic errors of 0.25-0.50 magnitudes); however, for our purposes, this is of sufficient accuracy to be useful. We excluded objects with $`B>20.0`$ from consideration.

The approach is described in detail for a cross-association with a single catalog (USNO-A2) elsewhere Rutledge et al. (2000). Here, we summarize the relevant descriptive elements for the present multi-catalog analysis which produced the initial candidate INS source list.

As we are limited to declinations $`\delta >39\mathrm{deg}`$ (the lower-limit of NVSS) we have a total of 15,205 RASS/BSC sources. First, we collect all sources in the three off-band catalogs which are within 150″ (except for USNO-A2, where we use 75″) from the RASS/BSC positions. For each X-ray source $`i`$ and off-band source $`j`$ pair we calculate a figure of merit $`LR_{i,j;C}`$ using a function which is particular to the off-band source catalog $`C`$:

$$LR_{i,j;C}=\frac{\mathrm{exp}^{r_{(i,j)}^2/2\sigma _{(i,j)}^2}}{\sigma _{(i,j)}N(>F_j;C)}$$
(2)
where $`r_{(i,j)}`$ is the separation between the X-ray source and the catalog object; $`\sigma _{(i,j)}`$ is the uncertainty in $`r_{(i,j)}`$, found by summing the quadrature of the uncertainty in the X-ray position and the off-band catalog object position (taking the largest uncertainty in the case of NVSS, where the uncertainties are typically elliptical); and $`N(>F_j;C)`$ is the fraction of sources in catalog $`C`$ (actually, in the “background fields”, see below) with greater fluxes than observed from source $`j`$.

In addition to using the single-object catalogs alone, we combined objects in groups of up to three (singles, doubles and triples), so that new “complex” catalogs of multi-source objects were used. For example: we formed complex catalogs of USNO-A2/USNO-A2, USNO-A2/IRAS, USNO-A2/NVSS, NVSS/NVSS and so-on, producing a total of six “doubles” catalogs. For each double-object, the value of $`LR`$ is the product of the individual objects which make up the double-object; if one USNO-A2 source had LR=5, and a second had LR=2, then the LR for the “complex” object comprised of both sources had LR=20; and similarly for triple-objects.

We then use 24 off-source positions (the “background fields”), offset in a 5$`\times `$5 grid with separations of 300″ and radii of 150″(except USNO-A2, where we use 75″). We exclude background fields which contain RASS/BSC sources. We calculate $`LR_{i,j;C}`$ for those “pairs” using now the center of the blank fields as the X-ray “source” position. Then, we calculate a “reliability” R for each pair $`i,j;C`$:

$$R_{i,j}(LR_{i,j;C})=\frac{N_{\mathrm{src}}(LR_{i,j;C})N_{\mathrm{background}}(LR_{i,j;C})}{N_{\mathrm{src}}(LR_{i,j;C})}$$
(3)
where $`N_{\mathrm{src}}(LR_{i,j;C})`$ is the number of objects in the source fields which had a value $`LR`$ within a $`\delta LR`$ of that obtained for the pair $`i,j`$, and $`N_{\mathrm{background}}(LR_{i,j;C})`$ is the same, but in background fields. The value $`R`$ is a pure probability – the probability that the candidate counterpart $`j`$ is not a background object, but is associated with the X-ray source in some way (and not necessarily as the X-ray emitter). $`R`$ is independent of the source catalog $`C`$ or the nature of the object $`j`$, and so we now can mix the values of $`R`$ for the same X-ray source $`i`$ to produce the probability that off-band source $`j`$ is associated with the X-ray source exclusive of other off-band sources in the field:

$$P_{i,j\mathrm{id}}=\frac{R_{i,j}\mathrm{\Pi }_{j^{}j}(1R_{i,j^{}})}{K}$$
(4)
Similarly, the probability that none of the objects in the field are associated with the X-ray source $`i`$ is:

$$P_{i,\mathrm{no}\mathrm{id}}=\frac{\mathrm{\Pi }_j(1R_{i,j})}{K}$$
(5)
and the normalization $`K`$ is:

$$K=\mathrm{\Pi }_j(1R_{i,j})+\mathrm{\Sigma }_jR_{i,j}\mathrm{\Pi }_{j^{}j}(1R_{i,j^{}})$$
(6)
When $`P_{i,noid}`$ is close to 1, none of the off-band objects in the field have properties which demonstrate a statistical excess in X-ray fields over background fields – that is, the off-band objects in the field are beyond the confusion limit. As found previously Rutledge et al. (2000), typical uncertainties in the values of $`P_{\mathrm{id}}`$ and $`P_{\mathrm{no}\mathrm{id}}`$ are $``$2%.

In performing this analysis, we also inserted 150 “control” sources among the source fields, set randomly about the sky in proportion to the local X-ray source density within our survey area. These act as a control experiment – since they are not real sources, they will have no detectable off-band counterparts in the all-sky catalogs, just as for INSs. This permits us to evaluate the efficiency with which our statistical selection will identify real INSs. Of the 150 “control” sources, 29 were found with $`P_{\mathrm{no}\mathrm{id}}`$$`>`$0.90 by this procedure; the remaining 80% of the control sources had $`P_{\mathrm{no}\mathrm{id}}`$$`<`$0.90, due to confusion with nearby optical sources.

In Fig. 1a, we show the spatial distribution of the control fields in Galactic coordinates. In Fig. 1b, we show the 29 fields found with $`P_{\mathrm{no}\mathrm{id}}`$$`>`$0.90. While the control fields are evenly distributed about the sky in our survey region, the “found” fields clearly avoid the Galactic plane. This is due to the fact that so many optical point sources populate the plane, that the fields are confused with spurious (low significance) sources (Fig. 1c).

In Fig. 1d, we show the cumulative distribution $`N(<|b|)`$ of the control sources with $`P_{\mathrm{no}\mathrm{id}}`$$`>`$0.90, in comparison with one expected from an equal area distribution in $`|b|`$ (taking into account the declination constraint for our survey area, which makes a difference only at the $``$few percent level in the cumulative distribution). Note that no control fields are found with $`|b|<20\mathrm{deg}`$. Using a K-S test Press et al. (1995), the detected control sources are inconsistent with an equal area distribution (KS probability of probKS=3$`\times 10^6`$), which we attribute to source confusion in the Galactic plane. Modeling the absent sources as a correction of $`F(b)=sin^n(b)`$, we find 90% confidence limits on $`n`$ of 1.25-3.8, with a best value of $`n=2.2`$.

### 3.1 Source Selection

We began with objects for which $`P_{\mathrm{no}\mathrm{id}}>0.90`$ (60 objects). From these, we excluded all objects in which the RASS/BSC hardness ratio HR1 indicated an effective temperature $`>`$200 eV (28 sources), which are too spectrally hard to be cooling or Bondi-accreting INSs. In the RASS/BSC, HR1 is defined in the usual fashion (=(B-A)/(B+A)), where B is the number of counts detected in the 0.5-2.0 keV band, and A is the number of counts detected in the 0.1-0.4 keV band), and we require HR$`>`$0. Because Bondi-accreting or cooling INSs are expected to have lower effective temperatures than 200 eV, we expect to lose no INSs from this cut (previously known INSs also have effective temperatures $`<`$200 eV). The thirty-two candidate sources are listed in Table 2, along with their number in the ROSAT Bright Source (RBS) catalog Fischer et al. (1998); Schwope et al. (2000a); Fischer et al. (2002), and other particulars as we describe in this section.

We show in Table 1 the calculated values of $`P_{\mathrm{id}}`$ for the seven known INSs listed in Treves et al. (2000), plus one more identified more recently Zampieri et al. (2001). Three are at declination below the NVSS limit, and so were not included in our analysis. Three have optical sources in the field which have probabilities of being the counterparts which would have selected them out of our sample. Two more, as we stated above, have a $`P_{\mathrm{no}\mathrm{id}}`$$``$1, such that they would have been included in our sample for Chandra observations. This lends confidence that our approach is capable of selecting INSs, although – as expected – source confusion hampers discovery.

### 3.2 Source Classification

We classify the thirty-two sources into one of three classes: (1) an INS; (2) not an INS; (3) undetermined. These classifications are listed in column 6 of Table 2, with the relevant reference for their classification in column 7. Here, we discuss the classifications each in turn.

Two of these sources are previously identified INSs.

A source is definitively not an INS when either: (a) it is localized to $``$1″ (with either a Chandra or ROSAT/HRI localization), and there is a spatially coincident optical counterpart with $`L_X`$/$`L_{\mathrm{bol}}`$$`<`$$`10^4`$; or (b) the X-ray source is variable on any timescale.

Finally we regard the classification as undetermined when the X-ray localization is not at the 1″ precision level, and when the X-ray source has not been shown to vary in intensity.

We first examined the SIMBAD-listed identifications and classifications for these sources (see Table 2). From these sources, we examined the literature for observations in which the X-ray source was shown to vary in intensity. We found five such sources in our list, which we classify as not INSs.

We obtained 1 ksec Chandra/HRC-S observations of eight selected fields. As we describe in § 4.1, in all cases we found either off-band counterparts at the arcsec Chandra positions, or that the X-ray sources were variable, resulting in a classification of “not an INSs”.

Four of the remaining sources had ROSAT/HRI observations in the archive. Using these, we show that either the sources were variable, or could be identified with an off-band counterpart using the $``$few arcsec localization (see § 4.2) and are therefore not INSs.

We found thirteen sources with either previous identifications but no evidence of X-ray variability; or for which there were nearby ($`{}_{}{}^{}{}_{}{}^{<}`$30″) off-band sources which belong to classes which are known X-ray emitters, which we list as possible counterparts. We classify these sources as “undetermined”.

Following these classifications, we find: 2 INSs, 17 sources which are not INSs, and 13 with undetermined classification.

## 4 X-ray Observations and Analyses

In this section, we describe the X-ray observations on which we rely to provide the arcsec localizations, demonstration of X-ray variability, and subsequent classifications as “not an INS”. The Chandra observations are part of an observing program to search for INSs, and so we describe these observations in some detail in § 4.1. The ROSAT observations, taken from the public archive, are more summarily described in § 4.2.

### 4.1 Chandra Observations and Analysis

All observations were performed with the HRC-S in imaging mode. Details of each observation are in Table 1. All analyses were performed with CIAO v2.2 222http://asc.harvard.edu/ciao/. Chandra source localizations were performed with wavdetect, by binning the data by a factor of 8 (1.05″ per bin), and searching for sources on scales of 1, 2, 4, 8, and 16 bins (1.05-16.9″), with significance threshold of $`10^6`$. Upper-limits to the average countrate, when no source is detected, are found by rebinning the area within 2′ of the ROSAT position to 2.1″ wide bins, and finding the greatest number of counts/bin. All detected X-ray sources were found on the smallest wavelet scale (1.05″) indicating that none were extended.

Here, we detail the results of individual X-ray source searches, and individual optical counterpart identifications. Where we find an X-ray source in our Chandra data, we search for optical counterparts in the Digitized Sky Survey (DSS), IR counterparts in the 2MASS 1st and 2nd incremental databases (which cover $``$40% of the sky, for which astrometry and photometry are available) the 2MASS quicklook image database (which cover 100% of the sky, but without astrometry and photometry), and in the Digitized Palomar Sky Survey (DPOSS; Djorgovski et al. (1998)).

As the RASS/BSC error circles are typically $`>`$8″(1$`\sigma `$) and there is typically 1 optical source in these fields localized to 1″, the a priori probability that any X-ray source will spatially coincide with an unassociated optical source is $`<`$0.5%. We therefore do not expect any spurious spatial associations with optical sources.

We estimate fluxes assuming a steep photon spectral slope of $`\alpha =3`$ and X-ray column $`N_\mathrm{H}`$=0, for which 1 Chandra/HRC-S count = 1.4$`\times 10^{12}`$ erg cm2 (0.5-2.0 keV).

The analysis results for the individual targets are as follows.

1RXS J020317.5$``$243832. Two X-ray sources are found in this field, both of which lie close to optical point sources in the DSS. As this offers the opportunity to do much better astrometry, we handled the absolute astrometry of this source slightly differently from our other targets. We correct the X-ray aspect according to the Chandra X-ray Science Center prescription 333http://asc.harvard.edu/calASPECT/fix\_offset/fix\_offset.cgi, which has typical 1$`\sigma `$ systematic uncertainty of 0.6″. We rebinned the X-ray data by only a factor of 2, and used wavedetect to obtain localizations, which were relatively accurate with a precision of 0.04″ for the and 0.09″for 1RXS J0203$``$2438 and the second object, respectively. Both can be identified with optical sources in the DSS, as well as in a 5-min integration image taken with ESI at Keck II shown in Fig. 2. To perform absolute astrometry, a 30-sec exposure of the field was also obtained with ESI/Keck II; six Guide Star Catalog II stars over this field were used to provide an absolute astrometric registration of 0.25″(1$`\sigma `$); the 5-min exposure was then registered relative to the 30-sec exposure. Finally, the second X-ray source in the field was assumed to be exactly coincident with an optical point source in the field – which coincided with the X-ray position to within Chandra astrometric errors (0.6″). The Chandra source corresponding to the RASS/BSC object is CXO 020317.626-243837.8, with an absolute uncertainty in its position of $`\pm `$0.3″. The corresponding optical source is near the plate limit on the DSS blue plate, and is not listed in the USNO-A2 catalog, nor is it detected in the 2MASS quicklook images. Taking the DSS plate limit to be $`B`$=20.8 (the faintest of 10 objects within 100″ of the X-ray source, listed in USNO-A2), and assuming the optical source to have a magnitude equal to this limit, this sets an $`L_X/L_B2`$, with fractional uncertainties at the level of 50%, due to uncertainty in the optical flux near the plate limit. This is consistent with an AGN origin for this object, which we offer as a tentative classification.

We observed the optical counterpart with the 10 m Keck II telescope and Echelle Spectrograph and Imager (ESI) on 5 November 2002 UT. In its echelle mode ESI provides uniform 11.5 km s-1 pixel-1 spectral resolution in the 4000–11,000 angstrom wavelength range. A single 600 s spectrum of the source reveals a broadband continuum with no prominent emission lines, and thus does not help much to clarify either the nature of the source or its distance or redshift.

1RXSJ 024528.9+262039. The Chandra X-ray source is spatially distant (22.7″, 2.8$`\sigma `$) from the RASS/BSC position, and is coincident with a bright IR source, detected in 2MASS and listed in USNO-A2. Our statistical analysis had placed a probability of unique identification with the USNO-A2 object of $`P_{\mathrm{id}}`$=0.088, due large distance from the ROSAT X-ray position. The corresponding USNO object has $`B=14.8`$, so $`JK`$=0.93 and $`BK`$=6.2. The colors are appropriate to a late M-type star (M3 has $`BK`$=6.1, $`JK`$=1.07; M4 has $`BK`$=6.43, $`JK`$=0.90, well within errors; Zombeck (1982)). For the $`VJ`$ and bolometric correction of an M3 star (B.C. = $`2.03`$; $`VJ`$=3.66), we find $`L_X`$/$`L_{\mathrm{bol}}`$=6$`\times 10^3`$.

We tentatively classify this X-ray source as a coronally active star of spectral type M2-M4. The absolute J magnitude is then $`M_J=6.988.34`$ Hawley et al. (2002). The implied distance modulus is $`m_JM_J`$=1.11-2.47, or a distance between 16 and 31 pc. The implied X-ray luminosity is (2-6)$`\times 10^{27}`$ $`\mathrm{erg}`$$`\mathrm{s}^1`$.

1RXS J115309.7+545636. There is no X-ray source detected in the Chandra field. We find an X-ray average countrate upper-limit of $`<`$4.7 c/ksec, and $`F_x<`$7$`\times 10^{15}`$ $`\mathrm{erg}`$$`\mathrm{cm}^2`$$`\mathrm{s}^1`$. At the time of analysis, there was an undocumented hot pixel in the detector, which was $`>`$2′ from the RASS/BSC source position, and which does not affect our analysis.

The X-ray source was present in pointed observations with ROSAT/PSPC on 1996 June 25, listed in the WGA catalog White et al. (1994) with a countrate of 27 c/ksec, approximately a factor 5 fainter than during the RASS (130$`\pm `$20 c/ksec). Thus, the object is variable on at least a 5-year timescale. At the fainter flux of the pointed ROSAT observation, this object would have been only marginally detected (with $``$6 counts) with the HRC-S.

1RXS J122940.6+181645. There is no X-ray source detected in the Chandra field. Based on the source hardness ratio and PSPC countrate, this was predicted to be the brightest object in the survey, with 400 counts/ksec. We find no 2″ regions within a 2 ′ radius of the RASS position with more than 3 counts, corresponding to an observed average X-ray countrate upper-limit of $``$2.7 c/ksec, and $`F_X`$4$`\times 10^{15}`$ $`\mathrm{erg}`$$`\mathrm{cm}^2`$$`\mathrm{s}^1`$. The observed X-ray limit indicates this source has faded by 2 orders of magnitude from the average X-ray flux observed during the RASS.

The ROSAT source has been tentatively identified as a BL Lac-type object RBS 1116 of unknown redshift Schwope et al. (2000b), with $`V`$=20.5 found from folding a low resolution spectrum with the sensitivity curve of a $`V`$ filter, in the process of the Hamburg survey for quasars in the RASS/BSC Bade et al. (1998). In a 3″ circle centered at the location of this optical source given in Schwope et al. (2000b), we find 1 count (with 1.0 background counts expected); this implies an upper-limit to the average countrate of the source of $`<`$ 5 counts/ksec or $`F_X<`$7$`\times 10^{15}`$ (96.6% confidence), and $`F_X/F_V<0.3`$.

1RXS J132833.1-365425. This was the brightest detected X-ray source in this survey, with 687$`\pm `$25 c/ksec, a factor of 10 brighter than predicted from the RASS/BSC countrate. Visual examination of the X-ray lightcurve showed no evidence for variability on a 1 or 100 second timescale. The X-ray source position (Fig. 3) is coincident with an IR source in the quicklook 2MASS images (Epoch 1999.45; 2MASS catalog photometry and astrometry is not yet available); we associate the Chandra X-ray source with this IR source. The nearest DSS object is $``$4.3″ $`\pm `$1″ away, in an image taken in epoch 1975.27; although the source is well above the DSS plate limit, it is not listed in USNO-A2, for reasons which are unclear. The source is listed in the GSC 2.2, with $`B`$=15.42$`\pm `$0.17. A plate taken during the Second Epoch UK Schmidt survey shows that the earlier epoch source has measurable proper motion, consistent with that object being at the location of the 2MASS source at the Epoch of the 2MASS observation. The implied proper motion is 165 milliarcsec/yr, with a 1$`\sigma `$ 25% uncertainty due to Chandra absolute astrometric uncertainties, indicating the source is a nearby, low-mass star.

1RXS J145010.6+655944. There is a faint source visible in the DSS2 blue plate, within 1″ of the Chandra X-ray source position. However, it is not detected on the red plate, and it is not included in USNO-A2. It is also detected by DPOSS (Fig. 4). There is no 2MASS source at the X-ray position in the 2MASS quicklook images. An optical spectrum of this source was taken with Keck in May 2002 (Fig. 5). The spectrum shows several narrow emission lines. We identify the object as a cataclysmic variable (CV) on the basis of its H$`\alpha `$ line (compare, for example, with spectrum from SDSS 1555, Szkody et al. (2002)).

1RXS J145234.9+323536. No X-ray point source was detected in the Chandra observation. This position on the sky has not otherwise been observed with the ROSAT, ASCA, or SAX X-ray observatories. Binning the 2′ circle around the source position into 2.1″ pixels, the largest number of counts per pixel was 3, for an upper-limit to the average countrate of $`<`$2.3 c/ksec, or $`F_X<`$3$`\times 10^{15}`$ $`\mathrm{erg}`$$`\mathrm{cm}^2`$$`\mathrm{s}^1`$. This is a factor of 44 below the predicted countrate.

1RXS J163910.7+565637. The X-ray source is associated spatially with an optical source (Fig. 6) near the center of the error box in DPOSS. The source is also observed near the survey limit in 2MASS quicklook images. The source is detected in the DSS blue and red plates, but it is not listed in USNO-A2, possibly due to extendedness. It is, however, listed in the HST Guide Star Catalog 2.2 as source N11231206454, with $`B`$=17.8$`\pm `$0.42; this corresponds to a flux ratio $`F_X/F_B0.1`$, comparable to those expected for AGN. An optical spectrum taken with Keck/LRIS in May 2002 showed a broad emission line ($``$4000 km s-1) 5 at 7412Å. If this is identified with MgII, then the redshift of the source is $`z=1.65`$$`\pm `$0.01. Assuming a Hubble constant $`H_0`$=65 km s-1, $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{\Lambda }=0.7`$ flat universe, the intrinsic X-ray luminosity is 1.4$`\times 10^{45}`$ $`\mathrm{erg}`$$`\mathrm{s}^1`$(in the observed 0.5-2.0 keV band). Assuming a K-correction of 2 mag, the absolute $`B`$ magnitude is $`M_B=29.8`$.

#### 4.1.1 Comparison of Chandra results, RASS/BSC Positions, and USNO-A2 Sources in the Digital Sky Survey

In Fig. 7, we show the eight fields of our INS candidates, taken from the Digital Sky Survey (DSS). The RASS/BSC error circle (3$`\sigma `$) is shown for each source, as well as the Chandra localization for the five sources which were detected. Of the three X-ray sources associated with AGN, two (1RXS J0203-2438, 1RXS J1450+6559) have optical counterparts which were at or below the DSS plate limit; the third (1RXS J1639+5656) has an optical counterpart which is well above the plate limit but which was not listed in USNO-A2, possibly due to its extendedness. Finally, of the two sources which are associated with stars, one (1RXS J0245+2620) was listed in USNO-A2, but was close to 3$`\sigma `$ from the RASS/BSC position, and so had a low probability of association ($`P_{\mathrm{id}}`$=0.088). The other (1RXS J1328-3654), which was $`<1\sigma `$ from the RASS/BSC position, is not listed in USNO-A2.

Had the optical counterpart of 1RXS J1639+5656 been included in USNO-A2, we find that it would have had $`P_{\mathrm{id}}`$$``$0.70, and would not have been included in our selection. Similarly, the optical counterpart to 1RXS J1328-3654, had it been included in USNO-A2, would have had $`P_{\mathrm{id}}`$=0.85. As such, neither would have ended up in our selection as INS candidates. The other optical counterparts which did not appear in USNO-A2 were well below the optical confusion limit, and would have had $`P_{\mathrm{id}}`$=0.

### 4.2 ROSAT HRI Observations and Analysis

Four sources in our list have archived ROSAT/HRI observations. We examined each in turn, using data from the HEASARC ROSAT archive at GSFC. We took positions and countrates from the first ROSAT Source Catalog of Pointed Observations with the High Resolution Imager444ROSAT Consortium, ROSAT News No. 74, 2001 Aug 9, while estimating upper-limits to countrates from the raw data. Although the X-ray focusing capability of the ROSAT/HRI permits relative X-ray localization to 1″, there is a systematic uncertinaty in the absolute positions derived from ROSAT/HRI observations at the level of $`3`$″ due to a boresight uncertainty, which must be kept in mind during analysis.

1RXS J094432.8+573544. A 3.4 ksec HRI observation (RH704086N00) detects both this and a second X-ray source, with $``$arcsec precision (at 09h44m31.s8+57d35m38s and 09h44m01.s9+57d3m210s respectively). Comparing these sources with DPOSS images finds that they can be re-registered with an offset consistent with the known ROSAT/HRI boresight uncertainty. Source 2 corresponds to USNOA2 094402.52+573209.2 ($`B=17.4`$, $`V=17.7`$); re-registering the X-ray source to 09h44m32.s42+57d35m37.s2 finds that it corresponds with DPOSS 094432.42+573534.9 with (g,r,i)=19.68,20.59,20.11), with an offset of 2.9″. There are four sources in the DPOSS catalog with $`g>20.0`$m, within a 120″$`\times `$120″box of this source. The probability of chance alignment at 2.9″ of one of these sources is 0.7%. The optical counterpart is too bright to correspond to an INS, and so we identify the X-ray source as not an INS. Its $`L_X/L_{\mathrm{opt}}`$ ratio is comparable to that of known AGN, and therefore this source may be an AGN.

1RXS J130547.2+641252 During the one 1.6 ksec HRI observation (RH704083N00), the source was undetected ($`<`$3 counts) within a 60″ radius of the RASS/BSC position. The RASS/BSC countrate (0.17$`\pm `$0.02 PSPC c/s) corresponds to 0.054 HRI c/s (assuming a power-law photon spectrum $`\alpha =3`$), or 87 counts during this observation, indicating that the source has faded by a factor of $`{}_{}{}^{}{}_{}{}^{>}`$30. Based on this variability, we identify the source as not an INS.

1RXS J130753.6+535137 This X-ray source has been identified (from spatial coincidence) with the very well studied CV V\* EV UMa. A 11.9ksec HRI observation (RH300382N00) does not detect the X-ray source within 60″ of the RASS/BSC position ($`<`$ 5 counts). Based on the RASS/BSC countrate (1.86$`\pm `$0.06 PSPC c/s), the predicted number of counts in the HRI observation is 7100, indicating that the source has faded by a factor $`{}_{}{}^{}{}_{}{}^{>}`$1400. Based on this variability, we identify the source as not an INS.

1RXS J163421.2+570933 We examined HRI observations centered on this source (RH201944N00 and RH202224N00, epochs 1995.27 and 1996.24 respectively) for which the source is focused within the central 1′ of the observation. The X-ray source is detected in both observations. In the latter observation, its arcsec localization was 16h34m21.17s+57d09m38s. We examined the 2MASS J-band quick-look image (epoch 1999.36) and DSS V-band images from two epochs (epochs 1955.32, 1991.50). We find a high proper-motion binary, with two components separated by 37″. The southern component (2MASS J163420.44+570944.0, – a (J,H,K)=8.50, 8.04, 7.77m, with colors corresponding to a K5-7 dwarf, or a K2 giant) – moves with ($`\mu _\alpha ,\mu _\delta `$)=($``$1135$`\pm `$5, +1170$`\pm `$30) mas/yr, which places it at 16h34m20.87s+57d09m40.3s at the epoch of the ROSAT/HRI observation, which is 3.4″ away from the ROSAT/HRI position, within the boresight correction uncertainties. The northern component is 2MASS 163421.6+57108.2, with (J, H, K)=(14.09, 14.08, 14.07) – a flat spectrum, possibly corresponding to an A-type star. There are 15 $`K<7.77`$ point sources in 2MASS, within 1 degree of this position, and the probability of one falling at $`<`$3.4″ from the ROSAT position randomly is 1.3$`\times 10^5`$. Based on the low likelihood of positional coincidence, we associate the X-ray source with 2MASS J163420.44+570944.0 and identify it as not an INS.

## 5 Estimation of the Number of INSs Detected in the RASS/BSC

To place a limit on the total number of INSs detected among the 18,811 X-ray sources in the RASS/BSC, we model the selection of our candidate list, and correct for each step.

Step 1: Statistical selection of INSs: As described in § 3, we performed a statistical cross identification with the intention of finding INSs from the absence of any likely off-band counterparts, as quantified by $`P_{\mathrm{no}\mathrm{id}}`$$`>`$0.90. From the original 15,205 RASS/BSC sources above our declination cut, 60 X-ray sources passed this selection. Of $`A=150`$ “control” sources, $`B=29`$ passed our $`P_{\mathrm{no}\mathrm{id}}`$ selection. A real INS in our survey region has a probability $`p`$ of of passing our INS selection; we represent this value $`p`$ as a binomial distribution (Fig. 8):

$$P_{\mathrm{XID}}(p)=\frac{p^B(1p)^{AB}}{_0^1p^B(1p)^{AB}𝑑p}$$
(7)
Step 2, Spectral Hardness Cut: We selected a total $`T=32`$ (from 60) X-ray sources with spectral hardnesses corresponding to effective temperatures $`kT_{\mathrm{eff}}`$$`<`$200 eV, which we assume loses no INSs since cooling and accreting (non-magnetic) INSs have effective temperatures below this value Popov et al. (2000a).

Step 3: Candidate Classification: After examining the literature, X-ray variability history, and new arc-sec localizations, we classified all $`T=32`$ candidates as either an “INS” (2 sources), “not an INS” (17) or “undetermined” ($`BG=`$13). We discovered no new INSs among our candidates. However, any (or all) of the $`BG`$ objects may well be INSs. We require a correction, which is the (un-normalized) probability $`P_{BG}(N)`$ that a number $`N`$ sources in the $`T=32`$ selection are INSs, with only $`N_{\mathrm{INS},\mathrm{min}}=2`$ INSs so identified:

$$P_{BG}(N)=\frac{\left(\begin{array}{c}N\\ N_{\mathrm{INS},\mathrm{min}}\end{array}\right)\left(\begin{array}{c}TN\\ TBGN_{\mathrm{INS},\mathrm{min}}\end{array}\right)}{\left(\begin{array}{c}T\\ TBG\end{array}\right)}$$
(8)
Here $`N_{\mathrm{INS},\mathrm{min}}NN_{\mathrm{INS},\mathrm{max}}`$ – that is, $`N`$ ranges from the minimum number of INSs known to be present in our sample of $`T`$ objects to the maximum number of INSs which could be present in the sample of $`T`$ objects ($`N_{\mathrm{INS},\mathrm{max}}=N_{\mathrm{INS},\mathrm{min}}+BG=19`$). See Fig. 9. The function $`\left(\begin{array}{c}x\\ y\end{array}\right)`$ is the familiar combinatorial factor $`x!/(y!(xy)!)`$.

These selections combined produce the unnormalized probability $`P_{\mathrm{INS}}(M^{})`$ that the total number of INSs in our survey field is $`M^{}`$:

$$P_{\mathrm{INS},\mathrm{un}\mathrm{normalized}}(M^{})=\underset{N=N_{\mathrm{INS},\mathrm{min}}}{\overset{\mathrm{min}(M^{},N_{\mathrm{INS},\mathrm{max}})}{}}\left(\frac{P_{\mathrm{BG}}(N)}{_{N=N_{\mathrm{INS},\mathrm{min}}}^{\mathrm{min}(M^{},N_{\mathrm{INS},\mathrm{max}})}P_{\mathrm{BG}}(N)}_0^1P_{\mathrm{XID}}(p)\frac{p^N(1p)^{M^{}N}}{_0^1p^N(1p)^{M^{}N}𝑑p}𝑑p\right)$$
(9)
where $`\mathrm{min}(A,B)`$ takes the lesser value of $`A`$ and $`B`$. To produce the probability that there are $`M`$ INSs in our survey field, we sum:

$$P_{\mathrm{INS}}(M)=\underset{M^{}=M}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\frac{P_{\mathrm{INS},\mathrm{un}\mathrm{normalized}}(M^{})}{\left(_{M^{}=N_{\mathrm{INS},\mathrm{min}}}^{\mathrm{}}P_{\mathrm{INS},\mathrm{un}\mathrm{normalized}}(M^{})\right)}$$
(10)
We begin the summation for the number of INSs in our fields at $`M=2`$ since this is the number of INSs we would have found with arc sec Chandra localizations. This results in upper-limits on the number of INSs detected in the RASS/BSC in our survey area of 56 (90% confidence – that is, $`P_{\mathrm{INS}}(56)=0.1`$) and 87 (99% confidence). These limits are consistent with the number of INSs previously known to be in our survey area (five).

A perhaps more intuitive (but less precise) way to obtain this limit is the following. We ultimately found 2 INSs. The combinatorial probability (Eq. 8, Fig. 9) shows that there can be at most 9 INSs (90% confidence) in the selection of 32. Our control fields showed (Eq. 7, Fig. 8) that for every 1 INS we find in our selection there are five INSs in our survey area. Thus, the 90% upper-limit of 9 in our selection becomes an upper-limit of $`5\times 9=`$45 in our survey area. After adding an additional 20% due to the width of our “control” field selection distribution (Fig. fig:pxid), the 90% upper-limit is 55 INSs in our survey area, comparable to the upper-limit of 56 we found in the more precise calculation.

Thirteen of the RASS/BSC sources in our sample did not have either an $``$arcsec position, or demonstrate X-ray variability, to rise to the level of being definitively classified as “not an INS”. All thirteen had previously been examined by other workers, who had found some nearby off-band source in the error-circle with which the X-ray source may plausibly be identified. While we do not accept these associations due to the absence of quantitative association argument, if one accepts these suggested associations, then the upper-limits on the number of INSs in our survey field decrease to $`<`$34 and $`<`$56 (90% and 99% confidence, respectively).

### 5.1 Full-Sky Number of INSs in the RASS/BSC, Assuming Isotropy

Since the effects of the galactic-latitude dependent confusion are already accounted for in our estimation of $`p`$, we do not need to account for this in calculating the correction for the full-sky, isotropic number of INSs in the RASS/BSC. Correcting only for the ratio of area coverage (a factor of 1.2) we find there are $`<`$67 and $`<`$104 INSs at 90% and 99% confidence. These limits are consistent with the number of INSs in the full sky RASS/BSC (seven).

### 5.2 Comparison of Observed Limit on INSs with a Naive and Optimistic Cooling NS Model

Here, we compare this limit on the number of INSs in the RASS/BSC with a naive and optimistic model model for cooling INSs in the galaxy.

We assume that such INSs are produced in the disk at a rate of $`\gamma _2`$ per 100 years, out to a radius of $`R_{\mathrm{disk}}`$=15 kpc; that such INSs have a velocity perpendicular to the disk, which remains constant in time, of a magnitude $`V_{\mathrm{perp}.}`$; that the disk can be treated in this limit as an infinite plane; that the X-ray luminosity is 2$`\times 10^{32}`$ $`\mathrm{erg}`$$`\mathrm{s}^1`$ in the ROSAT/PSPC passband (0.1-2.4 keV) for $`\tau =`$$`10^6`$ yr, after which the luminosity is zero (see, for example, Yakovlev et al. (2001)); and that the flux limit is 2$`\times 10^{13}`$ $`\mathrm{erg}`$$`\mathrm{cm}^2`$$`\mathrm{s}^1`$, which permits the detection of such INSs to a distance of $`\chi _{\mathrm{lim}}`$=10.3 kpc. In this model, the number of detected NSs is:

$$N=\frac{\gamma _2(0.01\mathrm{yr}^1)}{\pi R_{\mathrm{disk}}^2V_{\mathrm{perp}.}}\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}2}\pi _0^{min(V_{\mathrm{perp}.}\tau ,\chi _{\mathrm{lim}})}_0^{\sqrt{\chi _{\mathrm{lim}}^2z^2}}R𝑑R𝑑z$$
(11)
where $`R`$ is the distance of the INS from the observer in the Galactic plane and $`z`$ is the distance of the INS above the Galactic plane. This model is optimistic, in that it assumes that the INSs all have temperatures which are at the very upper-limit of theoretical estimates.

There are several reasons why this model is naive. First, it neglects the effect of absorption in the plane of the galaxy, which cannot be neglected for spectrally soft X-ray sources which would be observable out to 10 kpc. Second, it parameterizes the velocity perpendicular to the disk as a delta-function, while it is known that the radio pulsars are observed to exhibit a range of velocities, and the NSs will naturally travel with a distribution of angles relative to the disk.

Nonetheless, a limit of $`<`$67 INSs in the RASS/BSC in this model produces a limit on $`\gamma _2<`$0.025 (90% confidence), for $`V_{\mathrm{Perp}.}<10`$ kpc Myr-1, or a hot NS birthrate of 1 per 4000 years. This is low compared with the estimated SNe rate ($`\gamma _2`$1), and most likely implies that the naive and optimistic assumptions for this model are incorrect. Popov et al. (2000a), for example, have examined a cooling NS population model which includes galactic absorption, showing its effect to be important.

If we assume an $`\alpha =3`$ spectrum with a column density $`N_\mathrm{H}`$=3$`\times 10^{21}`$ cm-2 (slightly above the median all-sky value; Dickey & Lockman (1990)), the unabsorbed flux limit is substantially greater: 9$`\times 10^{12}`$ $`\mathrm{erg}`$$`\mathrm{cm}^2`$$`\mathrm{s}^1`$, for which INSs could be detected out to a distance of 1.5 kpc. Assuming an average spatial H density of 1 cm-3, the column density out to such distances is 4.5$`\times 10^{21}`$ – comparable to our assumed $`N_\mathrm{H}`$. Under this assumption, our limit on $`\gamma _2<1.1.`$

Comparison of the present results with this naive and optimistic model demonstrates that the limit on the number of INSs obtained is sufficient for detailed comparison with the INS model population under a range of assumptions (birth-rate, velocity distribution, NS cooling models, galactic distribution). We leave detailed comparison of these observational results with realistic population models for future work.

## 6 Summary and Conclusions

We performed a selection of INS candidates, and examined them for identification as INSs. We showed that this selection should identify 20% of the INSs in the Galaxy; confusion of USNO-A2 sources in the plane of the Galaxy is the major barrier efficient INSs identification. The selection found 32 candidate sources; of these, two were previously known to be INSs, seventeen we determine to be not INSs, and thirteen we leave as undetermined classification. No new INSs were discovered.

This results in limits for the number of INSs detected in the ROSAT/BSC of $`<`$67 INSs full sky (90% confidence) or $`<`$104 INSs full sky (99% confidence).

Of eight RASS/BSC X-ray sources observed with Chandra, three have faded, by factors of 5, 44, and 100; two are associated with tentatively classified low-mass stars, one is a CV and the remaining two are tentatively classified as AGN. Of the four observed with the ROSAT/HRI, we find that one faded by a factor of $`{}_{}{}^{}{}_{}{}^{>}`$30; one – previously identified as a CV – also faded by a factor of $`{}_{}{}^{}{}_{}{}^{>}`$1400; the remaining two are a high-proper-motion binary, and a source which may be an AGN.

The classification of four fading sources is uncertain. One (1RXS J1229+1816) has previously been suggested to correspond to a BL Lac object in the field; we have no additional evidence of that, except that BL Lac objects are known to vary dramatically in the X-ray, and this X-ray source faded by a factor $`>100`$.

If most INSs are powered by NS cooling as in the first $`10^6`$ yr following supernova, then the assumption of an isotropic distribution is well justified. On the other hand, if most INSs are powered by accretion from the ISM, one might expect a greater concentration of INSs toward the plane, as the ISM has a scale-height of $``$300 pc; however, because the mass accretion rate in Bondi accretion is strongly velocity dependent $`\dot{M}v^3`$, and the mass accretion rate in magnetically dominated accretion is dependent on the velocity with the opposite sense as Bondi accretion ($`\dot{M}v^{1/3}`$), as well as on the NS magnetic field strength Rutledge (2001); Toropina et al. (2001), correcting for a non-isotropic population is model-dependent, and we leave this for future work.

Note that our statistical cross-association technique excludes sources from consideration when the X-ray sources are associated with off-band counterparts. This is a reasonable approach if the INSs are not in any way associated with – for example – optical sources. If, however, most INSs were born with low velocities, then they may stay near their birthplace which may therefore be associated with bright optical sources such as an OB association. If this were the case, then we would miss such INSs, and our limit does not apply to these. If, however, NS formation or evolution processes give rise to a peculiar velocity of $``$100 kms-1, the INS will have crossed a galactic disk width (100 pc) on a timescale comparable to the cooling time ($`10^6`$ yr), so that it would not be associated with its birthplace.

The present limits on the number of INSs in the RASS/BSC are quantitatively comparable to those obtained from previous surveys (Neuhäuser & Trümper, 1999, and references therein). However, the limits from previous surveys were found by estimating a confusion rate with a spurious background AGN or stars; these estimates (typically $``$few percent) were not based on any quantified analysis of the non-X-ray AGN or stellar presence in background fields. In the present analysis, we quantified the confusion rate for INSs in our survey field by using control sources, finding that $``$80% of INSs would be confused with background sources. We therefore believe our estimation of the confusion rate to be highly robust in comparison to previous results, and our limits on the INSs in the RASS/BSC to be robust as well.

The fact that all X-ray sources detected with Chandra or ROSAT/HRI yielded an optical/IR counterpart is enlightening. It implies that the faintest persistent X-ray sources of the RASS/BSC can be successfully identified with 1″ X-ray astrometry using USNO-A2 and 2MASS – that is to say, that successful identification of the RASS/BSC X-ray sources is limited only by confusion, and not by high X-ray/optical flux ratios.

The present approach demonstrates the capability of statistical cross-identification techniques applied using all-sky-surveys Rutledge et al. (2000). Its advantage over previous approaches of examining individual X-ray sources and their nearby off-band counterparts is that we can “Monte-Carlo” the sky, and quantitatively state selection efficiency for INSs. As such, we are also able to examine the weakness of this approach, and design a superior experiment, which will improve on the present limit.

Improvement on the present limit on the number of INSs requires primarily a more efficient means of statistical identification of INSs, and not substantial numbers of new arcsec localizations of reasonable INS candidates in the RASS/BSC. For example, if we had observed all 32 (spectrally soft) INS candidates with Chandra, and there were no new INSs, this would lower the 90% limit from 56 to 34 INSs, an improvement of a factor of $``$1.6. However, if our identification efficiency had been 80% instead of 20% but everything else being the same (including having 13 “undetermined” sources), our 90% confidence upper-limit would now be $`<`$9 – comparable to the number known – instead of $`<`$56, an improvement of a factor of $``$5.6, which would not have required any more observations than we undertook for the present analysis. Thus, efficient statistical identification strategies are more critical to INS identification than are complete observations of “reasonable” candidates. Statistical applications such as this are becoming more common as the Virtual Observatory555http://www.nvosdt.org is developed NVO Interim Steering Committee (2001), and can be expected to leverage the large all-sky databases with modest new observations, to extract maximum science output.

RER was supported for this work by the Chandra Guest Observation program. RER acknowledges stimulating conversations with G. Farrar and L. Bildsten on the subject of observational limits on the NS birthrate. We are grateful to David Kaplan, Edo Berger and Josh Bloom for obtaining optical images in support of the present work. We are also grateful to the members of the Chandra Science Center for production of this exquisite observatory. This research has made use of the NASA/ IPAC Infrared Science Archive, which is operated by the Jet Propulsion Laboratory, California Institute of Technology, under contract with the National Aeronautics and Space Administration. This publication makes use of data products from the Two Micron All Sky Survey, which is a joint project of the University of Massachusetts and the Infrared Processing and Analysis Center/California Institute of Technology, funded by the National Aeronautics and Space Administration and the National Science Foundation. The Digitized Sky Surveys were produced at the Space Telescope Science Institute under U.S. Government grant NAG W-2166. The images of these surveys are based on photographic data obtained using the Oschin Schmidt Telescope on Palomar Mountain and the UK Schmidt Telescope. The plates were processed into the present compressed digital form with the permission of these institutions. The DPOSS project was generously supported by the Norris Foundation.


format: text

text:
# Noncommutative Self-dual Gravity

## I Introduction

Nowadays, there are two main candidates for a quantum theory of the gravitational field: string theory (M-theory) and loop quantum gravity. From the description of the low energy excitations of open strings, in the presence of a NS constant background $`B`$field, a noncommutative effective low energy gauge action connes ; ref3  appears in a natural way. It is known, from $`M`$(atrix)-theory that, at low energies, the coordinates of a gas of D0 branes are described by matrices, which give origin to virtual effects joe ; bfss . Such effects give rise to supergravitational interaction in eleven dimensions. Thus, gravity seems to arise from noncommutativity.

Along these lines, noncommutative gauge theory, as a continuous deformation of the usual theory, has attracted a lot of attention. Although gravitation does not arise in the low energy limit of open string theory as a gauge theory, some interesting effects of gravity processes (like the graviton-graviton-D-brane scattering, in the presence of a constant $`B`$-field) can be computed ardalan . However, a deeper study of the deformations of pure gravitational theories is still needed. Thus, the study of models of noncommutative gravity, independently of how they could arise from string or M-theory, could be important. Such models could be obtained starting from those formulations of gravitation which are based on a gauge principle. One of these formulations is the one of self-dual gravity (for a review, see reviewsd ; carlip ), from which the hamiltonian Ashtekar’s formulation ashtekar  can be obtained samuel ; js . The properties of this formulation have allowed the search for quantum gravity in the framework of loop quantum gravity and quantum geometry (for a review, see carlip ). In this context, it would be interesting to explore noncommutative loop quantum gravity.

On the other hand, there are proposals for a noncommutative formulation of gravitation cham0 , motivated by the understanding of the short distance behavior of the gravitational field connesbook . Proposals based on the recent developments are given in cham1 ; moffat ; cham ; cham2 ; zanon . In particular, in cham ; cham2 ; zanon  a Seiberg-Witten map for the tetrad and the Lorentz connection is given, where these fields are taken as components of a SO(4,1) connection in the first work, and of a U(2,2) connection in the others. In these works a MacDowell-Mansouri (MM) type action is considered, invariant under the subgroup U(1,1)$`\times `$U(1,1), and an excess of degrees of freedom, additional to the ones of the commutative theory, is handled by means of constraints. For other recent proposals of noncommutative gravity, see chandia .

On the other hand, in wess5  it has been shown that noncommutative gauge theories, based on the Seiberg-Witten map, for any commutative theory invariant under a gauge group $`G`$, can be constructed. The resulting noncommutative theory can be seen as an effective theory, invariant under the noncommutative enveloping algebra transformations, and also under the commutative transformations of $`G`$. This results from the fact that the Seiberg-Witten map may be seen as a sort of gauge fixing, in which the degrees of freedom added by noncommutativity to the fields and to the transformation parameters, are substituted by expressions depending on the commutative fields, in such a way that in the commutative limit the original theory is obtained. In this way, a minimal version of the noncommutative standard model with the gauge group SU(3)$`\times `$SU(2)$`\times `$U(1) has been proposed wess6 .

Following these ideas, starting from a SL(2,C), self-dual connection, in topologico  we have given a formulation for quadratic noncommutative topological gravitation, which contains the SO(3,1) signature and Euler topological invariants. In fact, the noncommutative signature can be straightforwardly obtained, but the Euler invariant cannot, as it involves the same difficulty as the MM action, which contains a contraction with the Levi-Civita tensor, instead of the SO(3,1) trace. However, both invariants can be combined into an expression given by the signature with a SO(3,1) self-dual connection, which amounts to the SL(2,C) signature.

In this paper, taking the same SL(2,C) connection as in topologico , considering the Plebański formulation pleban , we make a proposal for a noncommutative theory of gravity, which is fully invariant under the noncommutative gauge transformations mempleb . The Plebański formulation is written as a SL(2,C) topological BF formulation, given by the trace of the two-form B, times the field strength gary . The contact with Einstein gravitation is done trough constraints on the B-field, which are solved by the square of the tetrad one-form pleban . This theory can be restated in terms of self-dual SO(3,1) fields, the connection and the antisymmetric tensor B. After the identification of the B two-form with the tetrad one-form squared, a variation of this action with respect to the connection gives the vanishing of the torsion. The resulting action contains Einstein gravitation plus an imaginary term, which vanishes due to the Bianchi identities. The noncommutative version is obtained at the level of the SL(2,C) theory, by the application of the Moyal product and the Seiberg-Witten map. In this way, a highly nonlinear theory is obtained, which depends on the commutative SL(2,C) fields. These fields are then written in terms of the SO(3,1) self-dual connection and B-field, and the connection is written in terms of the tetrads. The consistency of the last step is ensured by the fact that the variation of the action with respect to the noncommutative SL(2,C) connection, gives an equation which is exactly solved by the vanishing of the commutative torsion.

The paper is organized as follows. In section 2 we briefly overview the Seiberg-Witten map and enveloping algebra. In section 3 we state the commutative self-dual gravity theory from which the noncommutative one is obtained. In section 4 the noncommutative theory is formulated and corrections are computed. Finally, section 5 contains our conclusions.

## II Noncommutative Gauge Symmetry and the Seiberg-Witten Map

In this section, a few conventions and properties of noncommutative spaces will be given for future reference. For recent reviews see e.g. douglas .

Noncommutative spaces can be understood as generalizations of the usual quantum mechanical commutation relations, by the introduction of noncommutative coordinates $`x^\mu `$ satisfying,

$$[x^\mu ,x^\nu ]=i\theta ^{\mu \nu },$$
(1)
where $`x^\mu `$ are linear operators acting on the Hilbert space $`L^2(𝐑^n)`$, and $`\theta ^{\mu \nu }=\theta ^{\nu \mu }`$ are real numbers. Given this linear operator algebra $`𝒜`$, the Weyl-Wigner-Moyal correspondence establishes an isomorphic relation between it and the algebra of functions on $`𝐑^n`$, with an associative and noncommutative star-product, the Moyal $``$product. Thus, the Moyal algebra $`𝒜_{}𝐑_{}^n`$ is, under certain conditions, equivalent to the Heisenberg algebra (1). The Moyal product is given by

$$f(x)g(x)\left[\mathrm{exp}\left(\frac{i}{2}\theta ^{\mu \nu }\frac{}{\epsilon ^\mu }\frac{}{\eta ^\nu }\right)f(x+\epsilon )g(x+\eta )\right]_{\epsilon =\eta =0}.$$
(2)
Under complex conjugation it satisfies $`\left(\overline{fg}\right)=\overline{g}\overline{f}`$.

As far as we will be working with a nonabelian group, we must include also matrix multiplication, so an $``$-product will be used as the external product of matrix multiplication with $``$-product. In this case hermitian conjugation is given by $`\left(fg\right)^{}=g^{}f^{}.`$ Inside integrals this product has the cyclicity property $`Trf_1f_2f_3\mathrm{}f_n=Trf_nf_1f_2f_3\mathrm{}f_{n1}`$. In particular $`Trf_1f_2=Trf_1f_2`$. From now on we will understand that the multiplication of noncommutative quantities is given by this $``$product.

Thus, to any expression containing space-time functions, a noncommutative expression can be associated by substitution of the usual product by this $``$product. However, this procedure has the well known ambiguity of the ordering of the resulting expression, which could be fixed by physical considerations. In particular, in the case of gauge theories, we wish to have a noncommutative theory, invariant under a suitable generalization of the gauge transformations. This generalization frequently is used to fix, to some extent, the ordering ambiguities.

Let us consider a theory, invariant under the action of the Lie group $`G`$, with gauge fields $`A_\mu `$, and matter fields $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ which transform under the adjoint representation $`\mathrm{𝐚𝐝}`$,

$`\delta _\lambda A_\mu `$ $`=`$ $`_\mu \lambda +i[\lambda ,A_\mu ],`$
$`\delta _\lambda \mathrm{\Phi }`$ $`=`$ $`i[\lambda ,\mathrm{\Phi }],`$ (3)
where $`\lambda =\lambda ^iT_i`$, and $`T_i`$ ($`i=1,\mathrm{},dimG`$) are the generators of the Lie algebra $`𝒢`$ of $`G`$, in the adjoint representation. These transformations are generalized for the noncommutative connection ref3 , and for the adjoint representation as,

$`\delta _{\widehat{\lambda }}\widehat{A}_\mu `$ $`=`$ $`_\mu \widehat{\lambda }+i\left[\widehat{\lambda }\stackrel{}{,}\widehat{A}_\mu \right],`$ (4)
$`\delta _{\widehat{\lambda }}\widehat{\mathrm{\Phi }}`$ $`=`$ $`i\left[\widehat{\lambda }\stackrel{}{,}\widehat{\mathrm{\Phi }}\right].`$ (5)
The commutators $`\left[A\stackrel{}{,}B\right]ABBA`$, have the correct derivative properties when acting on products of noncommutative fields. Due to noncommutativity, commutators like $`\left[\widehat{\lambda }\stackrel{}{,}\widehat{A}_\mu \right]`$ take values in the enveloping algebra $`𝒰(𝒢,\mathrm{𝐚𝐝})`$ of the adjoint representation of $`𝒢`$. Therefore, $`\widehat{\lambda }`$ and the gauge fields $`\widehat{A}_\mu `$ will also take values in this algebra. In general, for some representation $`𝐑`$, we will denote it by $`𝒰(𝒢,𝐑)`$ the section of the enveloping algebra $`𝒰`$ of $`𝒢`$, which corresponds to the representation $`𝐑`$.

Let us write for instance $`\widehat{\lambda }=\widehat{\lambda }^IT_I`$ and $`\widehat{A}=\widehat{A}^IT_I`$, then,

$$\left[\widehat{\lambda }\stackrel{}{,}\widehat{A}_\mu \right]=\frac{1}{2}\left\{\widehat{\lambda }^I\stackrel{}{,}\widehat{A}_\mu ^J\right\}[T_I,T_J]+\frac{1}{2}\left[\widehat{\lambda }^I\stackrel{}{,}\widehat{A}_\mu ^J\right]\{T_I,T_J\}.$$
(6)
Thus all the products of the generators $`T_I`$ will be needed in order to close the algebra $`𝒰(𝒢,\mathrm{𝐚𝐝})`$. Its structure can be obtained by successively computing the commutators and anticommutators starting from the generators of $`𝒢`$, until it closes,

$$[T_I,T_J]=if_{IJ}^{}{}_{}{}^{K}T_K,\{T_I,T_J\}=d_{IJ}^{}{}_{}{}^{K}T_K.$$

The field strength is ref3  $`\widehat{F}_{\mu \nu }=_\mu \widehat{A}_\nu _\nu \widehat{A}_\mu i[\widehat{A}_\mu \stackrel{}{,}\widehat{A}_\nu ]`$, hence it also takes values in $`𝒰(𝒢,\mathrm{𝐚𝐝})`$. From (5) it turns out that,

$$\delta _\lambda \widehat{F}_{\mu \nu }=i\left(\widehat{\lambda }\widehat{F}_{\mu \nu }\widehat{F}_{\mu \nu }\widehat{\lambda }\right).$$
(7)
We see that these noncommutative transformation rules can be obtained from the commutative ones, just by replacing the ordinary product of functions by the Moyal product, with a suitable product ordering. This allows to construct in a simple way invariant quantities.

If we wish to have a continuous commutative limit, the noncommutative fields $`\widehat{\mathrm{\Phi }}`$ must be power series expansions of the noncommutativity parameter $`\theta `$, starting from the commutative ones,

$$\widehat{\mathrm{\Phi }}=\mathrm{\Phi }+\theta ^{\mu \nu }\mathrm{\Phi }_{\mu \nu }^{(1)}+\theta ^{\mu \nu }\theta ^{\rho \sigma }\mathrm{\Phi }_{\mu \nu \rho \sigma }^{(2)}+\mathrm{}.$$
(8)
Thus, in such an expansion, the noncommutative fields will have in general an infinity of independent components. Moreover, the noncommutative gauge fields will take values in the enveloping algebra and, unless the enveloping algebra coincides with the Lie algebra of the commutative theory, as is the case of $`G=U(N)`$, they will have also a bigger number of matrix components. As this is also the case for the transformation parameters, it will be possible to eliminate a lot of degrees of freedom by fixing the gauge.

However, the Seiberg-Witten map ref3  establishes a one to one correspondence among the physical degrees of freedom of the noncommutative fields and the physical degrees of freedom of the commutative fields. This fact is used in reference wess5  to construct noncommutative gauge theories, in principle for any Lie group $`G`$.

The main point is that the Seiberg-Witten map allows for field dependent transformations. This means that if we combine two transformations, the gauge parameters will be transformed as well. Thus, if for an infinitesimal transformation matrix we have the correspondence $`\lambda \widehat{\lambda }`$, to the commutator of two transformations will not correspond simply the Moyal commutator, but wess5 ,

$$\widehat{[\lambda ,\eta ]}=[\widehat{\lambda }\stackrel{}{,}\widehat{\eta }]+i\left(\delta _\lambda \widehat{\eta }\delta _\eta \widehat{\lambda }\right).$$
(9)
If we suppose that there is an expansion like (8) for these matrices,

$$\widehat{\lambda }=\lambda +\theta ^{\mu \nu }\lambda _{\mu \nu }^{(1)}+\theta ^{\mu \nu }\theta ^{\rho \sigma }\lambda _{\mu \nu \rho \sigma }^{(2)}+\mathrm{},$$
(10)
then a solution for the coefficients can be obtained ref3 ; wess5 ,

$$\widehat{\lambda }(\lambda ,A)=\lambda +\frac{1}{4}\theta ^{\mu \nu }\{_\mu \lambda ,A_\nu \}+𝒪\left(\theta ^2\right).$$
(11)
Further, the Seiberg-Witten map determines the $`\mathrm{\Phi }^{(a)}`$ terms in (8), from the fact that the noncommutative transformations are given by (4), (5) and consequently, (7). These functions in (8) can be expressed in terms of the commutative fields and their derivatives. For the gauge fields, one solution is given by ref3 ,

$$\widehat{A}_\mu \left(A\right)=A_\mu \frac{1}{4}\theta ^{\nu \rho }\{A_\nu ,_\rho A_\mu +F_{\rho \mu }\}+𝒪\left(\theta ^2\right),$$
(12)
from which, for the field strength it turns out that,

$$\widehat{F}_{\mu \nu }=F_{\mu \nu }+\frac{1}{4}\theta ^{\rho \sigma }\left(2\{F_{\mu \rho },F_{\nu \sigma }\}\{A_\rho ,D_\sigma F_{\mu \nu }+_\sigma F_{\mu \nu }\}\right)+𝒪\left(\theta ^2\right).$$
(13)
For fields in the adjoint representation we have got the solution,

$$\widehat{\mathrm{\Phi }}(\mathrm{\Phi },A)=\mathrm{\Phi }\frac{1}{4}\theta ^{\mu \nu }\{A_\mu ,(D_\nu +_\nu )\mathrm{\Phi }\}+𝒪\left(\theta ^2\right).$$
(14)
It is well known that these solutions are not unique, other terms depending on continuous parameters can be added to them. In reno  this freedom has been related to renormalizability properties. However, it can be also used in order to simplify the structure of the theory wess6 . In particular, it allows to give the simple forms of (13) and (14), which have the interesting property that if the commutative fields vanish, also the first order corrections will vanish. In this case, there is a solution for which all higher order terms of the expansion (8) vanish as well.

These higher order terms can be obtained from the the Seiberg-Witten maps for which $`\frac{}{\theta ^{\mu \nu }}\widehat{\lambda }(\theta )`$ and $`\frac{}{\theta ^{\mu \nu }}\widehat{\mathrm{\Phi }}(\theta )`$ are solutions, i.e. from the solutions of the equations which result from the corresponding gauge transformations, given by the $`\theta `$derivatives of (10) and (5),

$`\theta ^{\mu \nu }\left[\delta _\lambda {\displaystyle \frac{}{\theta ^{\mu \nu }}}\widehat{\eta }\delta _\eta {\displaystyle \frac{}{\theta ^{\mu \nu }}}\widehat{\lambda }\right]=i\theta ^{\mu \nu }`$ $`(`$ $`\left[{\displaystyle \frac{}{\theta ^{\mu \nu }}}\widehat{\lambda }\stackrel{}{,}\widehat{\eta }\right]+\left[\widehat{\lambda }\stackrel{}{,}{\displaystyle \frac{}{\theta ^{\mu \nu }}}\widehat{\eta }\right]`$ (15)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{}{\theta ^{\mu \nu }}}\widehat{[\lambda ,\eta ]}+{\displaystyle \frac{i}{2}}\left\{_\mu \widehat{\lambda }\stackrel{}{,}_\nu \widehat{\eta }\right\}),`$
and

$$\theta ^{\mu \nu }\delta _\lambda \frac{}{\theta ^{\mu \nu }}\widehat{\mathrm{\Phi }}=i\theta ^{\mu \nu }\left(\left[\frac{}{\theta ^{\mu \nu }}\widehat{\lambda }\stackrel{}{,}\widehat{\mathrm{\Phi }}\right]+\left[\widehat{\lambda }\stackrel{}{,}\frac{}{\theta ^{\mu \nu }}\widehat{\mathrm{\Phi }}\right]+\frac{i}{2}\left\{_\mu \widehat{\lambda }\stackrel{}{,}_\nu \widehat{\mathrm{\Phi }}\right\}\right),$$
(16)
where the $`\theta ^{\mu \nu }`$ factor is included in order to take into account of the antisymmetry in $`\mu `$ and $`\nu `$. A solution to this equation can be obtained ref3  from the first order solution $`\mathrm{\Phi }_{\mu \nu }^{(1)}`$. Indeed, from this first order term, by substitution of the commutative fields by the noncommutative ones, with multiplication given by the $``$-product, full Seiberg-Witten mapped fields $`\widehat{\lambda _{\mu \nu }^{(1)}}`$ and $`\widehat{\mathrm{\Phi }_{\mu \nu }^{(1)}}`$ can be constructed. Hence, from (11) and (14), we have,

$`\theta ^{\mu \nu }\widehat{\lambda ^{(1)}}_{\mu \nu }`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}\theta ^{\mu \nu }\left\{_\mu \widehat{\lambda }\stackrel{}{,}\widehat{A}_\nu \right\},`$ (17)
$`\theta ^{\mu \nu }\widehat{\mathrm{\Phi }^{(1)}}_{\mu \nu }`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}\theta ^{\mu \nu }\left\{\widehat{A}_\mu \stackrel{}{,}(\widehat{D}_\nu +_\nu )\widehat{\mathrm{\Phi }}\right\}.`$ (18)
Now, after some algebra, taking into account the noncommutative gauge transformations (4), (5) and (9), we get,

$`\theta ^{\mu \nu }\left[\delta _\lambda \widehat{\eta ^{(1)}}_{\mu \nu }\delta _\eta \widehat{\lambda ^{(1)}}_{\mu \nu }\right]`$ $`=`$ $`i\theta ^{\mu \nu }\left(\left[\widehat{\lambda ^{(1)}}_{\mu \nu }\stackrel{}{,}\widehat{\eta }\right]+\left[\widehat{\lambda }\stackrel{}{,}\widehat{\eta ^{(1)}}_{\mu \nu }\right]\widehat{[\lambda ,\eta ]^{(1)}}_{\mu \nu }+{\displaystyle \frac{i}{2}}\left\{_\mu \widehat{\lambda }\stackrel{}{,}_\nu \widehat{\eta }\right\}\right)`$
$`\theta ^{\mu \nu }\delta _\lambda \widehat{\mathrm{\Phi }^{(1)}}_{\mu \nu }`$ $`=`$ $`i\theta ^{\mu \nu }\left(\left[\widehat{\lambda ^{(1)}}_{\mu \nu }\stackrel{}{,}\widehat{\mathrm{\Phi }}\right]+\left[\widehat{\lambda }\stackrel{}{,}\widehat{\mathrm{\Phi }^{(1)}}_{\mu \nu }\right]+{\displaystyle \frac{i}{2}}\left\{_\mu \widehat{\lambda }\stackrel{}{,}_\nu \widehat{\mathrm{\Phi }}\right\}\right).`$ (19)
These equations give solutions for (15) and (16), if the following identifications are made ref3 ,

$`{\displaystyle \frac{}{\theta ^{\mu \nu }}}\widehat{\lambda }`$ $`=`$ $`\widehat{\lambda ^{(1)}}_{\mu \nu },`$ (20)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{}{\theta ^{\mu \nu }}}\widehat{\mathrm{\Phi }}`$ $`=`$ $`\widehat{\mathrm{\Phi }^{(1)}}_{\mu \nu },`$ (21)
which at $`\theta =0`$ are identically satisfied. In fact, (21) is more general, it is valid also for the connection ref3 , and as well for any field transforming under a linear representation. From it, together with (20), by successive derivations with respect to $`\theta `$, a solution for all higher terms of the Seiberg-Witten map can be computed.

Now, we see that if the first order term $`\mathrm{\Phi }^{(1)}`$ vanishes, by construction also $`\widehat{\mathrm{\Phi }^{(1)}}`$ will vanish, and consequently in this case $`\widehat{\mathrm{\Phi }}=0`$ is a consistent solution for the Seiberg-Witten map.

The fact that the components of the noncommutativity parameter $`\theta `$ are constant, has the important consequence that Lorentz covariance and general covariance under diffeomorphisms of the underlying manifold, are spoiled. The answer that is usually given to this question is that, at the scale where noncommutativity is relevant, it is possible that nature has not the same symmetries like in the commutative limit.

## III Description of Self-dual Gravity

One of the main features of the tetrad formalism of the theory of gravitation utiyama , is that it introduces local Lorentz SO(3,1) transformations. In this case, the generalized Hilbert- Palatini formulation is written as $`e_a^\mu e_b^\nu R_{\mu \nu }^{ab}(\omega )d^4x`$, where $`e_a^\mu `$ is the inverse tetrad, and $`R_{\mu \nu }^{ab}(\omega )`$ is the so(3,1) valued field strength. The decomposition of the Lorentz group as SO(3,1)=SL(2,C)$``$SL(2,C), and the geometrical structure of four dimensional space-time, makes it possible to formulate gravitation as a complex theory, as in pleban ; ashtekar . These formulations take advantage of the properties of the fundamental or spinorial representation of SL(2,C), which allows a simple separation of the action on the fields of both factors of SO(3,1), as shown in great detail in pleban . All the Lorentz Lie algebra valued quantities, in particular the connection and the field strength, decompose into the self-dual and anti-self-dual parts, in the same way as the Lie algebra so(3,1)=s$`\mathrm{}`$(2,C)$``$s$`\mathrm{}`$(2,C). However, Lorentz vectors, like the tetrad, transform under mixed transformations of both factors and so this formulation cannot be written as a chiral SL(2,C) theory. Various proposals in this direction have been made (for a review, see reviewsd ). In a early formulation, this problem has been solved by Plebański pleban , where by means of a constrained Lie algebra valued two-form $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$, the theory can be formulated as a chiral SL(2,C) invariant BF-theory, Tr$`\mathrm{\Sigma }R(\omega )`$. In this formulation $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ has two SL(2,C) spinorial indices, and it is symmetric on them $`\mathrm{\Sigma }^{AB}=\mathrm{\Sigma }^{BA}`$, as any such s$`\mathrm{}`$(2,C) valued quantity. The constraints are given by $`\mathrm{\Sigma }^{AB}\mathrm{\Sigma }^{CD}=\frac{1}{3}\delta _{(A}^C\delta _{B)}^D\mathrm{\Sigma }^{EF}\mathrm{\Sigma }_{EF}`$ and, as shown in pleban , their solution implies the existence of a tetrad one-form, which squared gives the two-form $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$. In the language of SO(3,1), this two-form is a second rank antisymmetric self-dual two-form, $`\mathrm{\Sigma }^{+ab}=\mathrm{\Pi }_{cd}^{+ab}\mathrm{\Sigma }^{cd}`$, where $`\mathrm{\Pi }_{cd}^{+ab}=\frac{1}{4}\left(\delta _{cd}^{ab}+iϵ_{cd}^{ab}\right)`$. In this case, the constraints can be recast into the equivalent form $`\mathrm{\Sigma }^{+ab}\mathrm{\Sigma }^{+cd}=\mathrm{\Pi }^{+abcd}\mathrm{\Sigma }^{+ef}\mathrm{\Sigma }_{ef}^+`$, with solution $`\mathrm{\Sigma }^{ab}=2e^ae^b`$.

For the purpose of the noncommutative formulation, we will consider self-dual gravity in a somewhat different way as in the papers pleban ; ashtekar . In this section we will fix our notations and conventions.

Let us take the self-dual SO(3,1) BF action, defined on a $`(3+1)`$-dimensional pseudo-riemannian manifold $`(X,g_{\mu \nu })`$,

$$I=i\mathrm{Tr}_X\mathrm{\Sigma }^+R^+=i_X\epsilon ^{\mu \nu \rho \sigma }\mathrm{\Sigma }_{\mu \nu }^{+ab}R_{\rho \sigma ab}^+(\omega )d^4x,$$
(22)
where $`R_{\rho \sigma ab}^+=\mathrm{\Pi }_{ab}^{+cd}R_{\rho \sigma cd}`$, is the self-dual SO(3,1) field strength tensor. This action can be rewritten as

$$I=\frac{1}{2}_X\epsilon ^{\mu \nu \rho \sigma }\left(i\mathrm{\Sigma }_{\mu \nu }^{ab}R_{\rho \sigma ab}+\frac{1}{2}\epsilon _{abcd}\mathrm{\Sigma }_{\mu \nu }^{ab}R_{\rho \sigma }^{cd}\right)d^4x.$$
(23)
If now we take the solution of the constraints on $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$, which we now write as

$$\mathrm{\Sigma }_{\mu \nu }^{ab}=e_\mu ^ae_\nu ^be_\mu ^be_\nu ^a,$$
(24)
then

$$I=_X(deteR+i\epsilon ^{\mu \nu \rho \sigma }R_{\mu \nu \rho \sigma })d^4x.$$
(25)
The real and imaginary parts of this action must be variated independently because the fields are real. The first part represents Einstein action in the Palatini formalism, from which, after variation of the Lorentz connection, a vanishing torsion $`T_{\mu \nu }^a=0`$ turns out. As a consequence, the second term vanishes due to Bianchi identities.

The action (22) can be written as

$$I=i_X\epsilon ^{\mu \nu \rho \sigma }\mathrm{\Sigma }_{\mu \nu }^{+ab}R_{\rho \sigma ab}(\omega ^+)d^4x,$$
(26)
where $`R_{\mu \nu }^{ab}(\omega ^+)=_\mu \omega _\nu ^{+ab}_\nu \omega _\mu ^{+ab}+\omega _\mu ^{+ac}\omega _{\nu c}^{+b}\omega _\nu ^{+ac}\omega _{\mu c}^{+b}`$. From the decomposition SO(3,1)=SL(2,C)$`\times `$SL(2,C), it turns out that $`\omega _\mu ^i=\omega _\mu ^{+0i}`$ is a SL(2,C) connection. Further, if we take into account self-duality, $`\epsilon _{cd}^{ab}\omega _\mu ^{+cd}=2i\omega _\mu ^{+ab}`$, we get $`\omega _\mu ^{+ij}=i\epsilon _k^{ij}\omega _\mu ^k`$. Therefore,

$`R_{\mu \nu }^{0i}(\omega ^+)`$ $`=`$ $`_\mu \omega _\nu ^i_\nu \omega _\mu ^i+2i\epsilon _{jk}^i\omega _\mu ^j\omega _{\nu c}^k=R_{\mu \nu }^i(\omega )`$ (27)
$`R_{\mu \nu }^{ij}(\omega ^+)`$ $`=`$ $`_\mu \omega _\nu ^{+ij}_\nu \omega _\mu ^{+ij}+2(\omega _\mu ^i\omega _\nu ^j\omega _\nu ^i\omega _\mu ^j)=i\epsilon _{}^{ij}{}_{k}{}^{}R_{\mu \nu }^k(\omega ),`$ (28)
where $`R_{\mu \nu }^{}{}_{}{}^{i}`$ is the SL(2,C) field strength.

Similarly, we define $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_{\mu \nu }^i=\mathrm{\Sigma }_{\mu \nu }^{+\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}0}i}`$, which transforms in the SL(2,C) adjoint representation. From it we get, $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_{\mu \nu }^{+ij}=i\epsilon _k^{ij}\mathrm{\Sigma }_{\mu \nu }^k`$. Thus, the action (26) can be written as a SL(2,C) $`BF`$-action

$`I`$ $`=`$ $`i{\displaystyle _X}\epsilon ^{\mu \nu \rho \sigma }\left[\mathrm{\Sigma }_{\mu \nu }^{+\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}0}i}R_{\rho \sigma 0i}(\omega ^+)+\mathrm{\Sigma }_{\mu \nu }^{+ij}R_{\rho \sigma ij}(\omega ^+)\right]d^4x=4i{\displaystyle _X}\epsilon ^{\mu \nu \rho \sigma }\mathrm{\Sigma }_{\mu \nu }^iR_{\rho \sigma i}(\omega )d^4x.`$
Therefore, if we choose the algebra $`s\mathrm{}(2,𝐂)`$ to satisfy $`[T_i,T_j]=2i\epsilon _{ij}^kT_k`$ and $`Tr(T_iT_j)=2\delta _{ij}`$, we have that (22) can be rewritten as the self-dual action pleban ,

$$I=2i\mathrm{Tr}_X\mathrm{\Sigma }R,$$
(29)
which is SL(2,C) invariant.

If the variation of this action with respect to the SL(2,C) connection $`\omega `$ is set to zero, we get the equations

$$\mathrm{\Psi }^{\mu i}=\epsilon ^{\mu \nu \rho \sigma }D_\nu \mathrm{\Sigma }_{\rho \sigma }^i=\epsilon ^{\mu \nu \rho \sigma }\left(_\nu \mathrm{\Sigma }_{\rho \sigma }^i+2i\epsilon _{jk}^i\omega _\nu ^j\mathrm{\Sigma }_{\rho \sigma }^k\right)=0.$$
(30)
Taking into account separately both real and imaginary parts, we get, in terms of the SO(3,1) connection,

$$\epsilon ^{\mu \nu \rho \sigma }D_\nu \mathrm{\Sigma }_{\rho \sigma }^{ab}=\epsilon ^{\mu \nu \rho \sigma }\left(_\nu \mathrm{\Sigma }_{\rho \sigma }^{ab}+\omega _\nu ^{ac}\mathrm{\Sigma }_{\rho \sigma c}^b\omega _\nu ^{bc}\mathrm{\Sigma }_{\rho \sigma c}^a\right)=0,$$
(31)
which after the identification (24), can be written as

$$\epsilon ^{\mu \nu \rho \sigma }(_\nu e_\rho ^ae_\sigma ^b_\nu e_\rho ^be_\sigma ^a+\omega _\nu ^{ac}e_{\rho c}e_\sigma ^b\omega _\nu ^{bc}e_{\rho c}e_\sigma ^a)=\epsilon ^{\mu \nu \rho \sigma }(T_{\nu \rho }^ae_\sigma ^bT_{\nu \rho }^be_\sigma ^a)=0.$$
(32)
From which the vanishing torsion condition once more turns out.

## IV The Noncommutative Action

We start from the SL(2,C) invariant action (29). From it, the noncommutative action can be obtained straightforwardly as

$$\widehat{I}=i\mathrm{Tr}_X\widehat{\mathrm{\Sigma }}\widehat{R}.$$
(33)
This action is invariant under the noncommutative SL(2,C) transformations

$`\delta _{\widehat{\lambda }}\widehat{\omega }_\mu `$ $`=`$ $`_\mu \widehat{\lambda }+i[\widehat{\lambda }\stackrel{}{,}\widehat{\omega }_\mu ],`$ (34)
$`\delta _{\widehat{\lambda }}\widehat{\mathrm{\Sigma }}_{\mu \nu }`$ $`=`$ $`i[\widehat{\lambda }\stackrel{}{,}\widehat{\mathrm{\Sigma }}_{\mu \nu }].`$ (35)
Actually, in order to obtain the noncommutative generalization of the Einstein equation, we could consider the real part of (33),

$$\widehat{I_E}=\frac{i}{2}\mathrm{Tr}_X\left[\widehat{\mathrm{\Sigma }}\widehat{R}(\widehat{\mathrm{\Sigma }}\widehat{R})^{}\right],$$
(36)
which is also invariant under (34) and (35).

In order to obtain the corresponding to the torsion condition, a $`\omega `$ variation of (33) must be done. Although we are considering the commutative fields as the fundamental ones, the action is written in terms of the noncommutative ones. Furthermore, the relation between the commutative and the noncommutative physical degrees of freedom is one to one ref3 . So the equivalent to the variation of the action with respect to $`\omega `$ will be the variation with respect to $`\widehat{\omega }`$. Thus we write,

$`\delta _{\widehat{\omega }}\widehat{I}`$ $`=`$ $`8i\mathrm{Tr}{\displaystyle _X}\epsilon ^{\mu \nu \rho \sigma }\left(_\rho \widehat{\mathrm{\Sigma }}_{\mu \nu }i[\widehat{\omega }_\rho \stackrel{}{,}\widehat{\mathrm{\Sigma }}_{\mu \nu }]\right)\delta \widehat{\omega }_\sigma =0,`$ (37)
from which we obtain the noncommutative version of (31)

$$\widehat{\mathrm{\Psi }^\mu }=\epsilon ^{\mu \nu \rho \sigma }\widehat{D}_\nu \widehat{\mathrm{\Sigma }}_{\rho \sigma }=0.$$
(38)
These equations are covariant under the noncommutative transformations (34) and (35), which means that their Seiberg-Witten expansion should be similar to the one of a matter field in the adjoint representation (14). In this case we have that, if the commutative field vanishes, also the first order term of the noncommutative one will vanish. If this happens, as shown at the end of section 2, all the higher orders would vanish as well. Thus, we could expect that a solution to Eq. (38) would be given by the solution of the commutative equation $`\mathrm{\Psi }^\mu =0`$, and this is indeed the case. If we compute the first order of the Seiberg-Witten expansion of the covariant derivative of $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$, we get,

$$\widehat{D}_\mu \widehat{\mathrm{\Sigma }}_{\nu \rho }=D_\mu \mathrm{\Sigma }_{\nu \rho }\frac{1}{4}\theta ^{\zeta \tau }\left(\{\omega _\zeta ,(D_\tau +_\tau )D_\mu \mathrm{\Sigma }_{\nu \rho }\}+2\{R_{\mu \zeta },D_\tau \mathrm{\Sigma }_{\nu \rho }\}\right)+𝒪\left(\theta ^2\right),$$
(39)
from which it turns out that,

$$\widehat{\mathrm{\Psi }}^\mu =\mathrm{\Psi }^\mu \frac{1}{4}\theta ^{\nu \rho }\left(\{\omega _\nu ,(D_\rho +_\rho )\mathrm{\Psi }^\mu \}2\{R_{\nu \rho },\mathrm{\Psi }^\mu \}+2\delta _\nu ^\mu \{R_{\tau \rho },\mathrm{\Psi }^\tau \}\right)+𝒪\left(\theta ^2\right).$$
(40)
Hence the solutions of the commutative equations $`\mathrm{\Psi }^\mu =0`$, will be as well solutions of $`\widehat{\mathrm{\Psi }}^\mu =0`$. Furthermore, $`\mathrm{\Psi }^\mu =0`$ are equivalent to set the torsion equal to zero, that is, after the substitution $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_{\mu \nu }^{}{}_{}{}^{ab}=e_{\mu }^{}{}_{}{}^{a}e_{\nu }^{}{}_{}{}^{b}e_{\nu }^{}{}_{}{}^{a}e_{\mu }^{}{}_{}{}^{b}`$, their solution is given by,

$$\omega _\mu ^{ab}=\frac{1}{2}e^{a\nu }e^{b\rho }\left[e_{\mu c}(_\nu e_\rho ^c_\rho e_\nu ^c)e_{\nu c}(_\rho e_\mu ^c_\mu e_\rho ^c)e_{\rho c}(_\mu e_\nu ^c_\nu e_\mu ^c)\right].$$
(41)
Therefore we can compute the corrections of the noncommutative action (36) as follows. First we write the Seiberg-Witten expansion of the SL(2,C) fields $`\widehat{\mathrm{\Sigma }}`$ and $`\widehat{\omega }`$. Furthermore the commutative SL(2,C) fields are written by means of the self-dual SO(3,1) fields, $`\omega _\mu ^i=\omega _\mu ^{+0i}`$ and $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_{\mu \nu }^i=\mathrm{\Sigma }_{\mu \nu }^{+\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}0}i}`$. Then, decompose these self-dual fields into the real ones $`\omega _\mu ^{ab}`$ and $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_{\mu \nu }^{ab}`$, and then substitute $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_{\mu \nu }^{}{}_{}{}^{ab}=e_{\mu }^{}{}_{}{}^{a}e_{\nu }^{}{}_{}{}^{b}e_{\nu }^{}{}_{}{}^{a}e_{\mu }^{}{}_{}{}^{b}`$ and write the connection as in (41). In this case we will have a noncommutative action, which will depend only on the tetrad.

If we consider the real part, the first order correction vanishes, and, after a lengthy calculation, the second order one turns out to be, already written in terms of commutative SO(3,1) fields,

$`\widehat{I}_{\theta ^2}={\displaystyle \frac{\theta ^{lm}\theta ^{rs}}{2^4}}{\displaystyle _X}dx^4det(e)\{_s\left[_m\left(\omega _l^{ab}R_{abcd}\right)\omega _r^{cd}\right]+_s\left(\omega _l^{ab}_r\omega _m^{cd}R_{abcd}\right)`$
$`+16R_m^a\left(R_{ar}^{bc}R_{lsbc}\omega _r^{bc}_sR_{albc}\right){\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}_m\left(\omega _r^{ab}\left(_s\omega _{lab}+R_{slab}\right)\right)R{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}_m\omega _l^{ab}(R_{ar}^{ef}R_{bsef}\omega _r^{ef}_sR_{abef})`$
$`2_r\omega _m^{ef}_sR_{ef}^{cd}\omega _{lcd}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\epsilon _{abcd}\epsilon ^{efgh}[\omega _{lef}_m(R_{gr}^{ab}R_{hs}^{cd}\omega _r^{ab}_sR_{gh}^{cd})+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}_s\left(\omega _{lef}_r\omega _m^{ab}\right)R_{gh}^{cd}`$
$`+_m\omega _{lef}(R_{gr}^{ab}R_{hs}^{cd}\omega _r^{ab}_sR_{gh}^{cd}){\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}_s\left(_m\left(\omega _l^{ab}R_{gh}^{cd}\right)\omega _{ref}\right)]\},`$ (42)
where the connection $`\omega _\mu ^{ab}`$ is given by (41). This correction terms could allow the explicit computation of deformed known gravitational metrics.

## V Conclusions

In this work we propose an ansatz to get a noncommutative formulation of standard four-dimensional Einstein gravitation. We start from a self-dual SO(3,1) BF-action, which is equivalent to Einstein gravitation after the substitution of the B-field in terms of the tetrad. This action is reformulated as the chiral SL(2,C) invariant self-dual action (29), from which the noncommutative action (33) is straightforwardly obtained. This chiral action allows us to find an alternative noncommutative gravity action in four dimensions, that generalizes the usual general relativity. As mentioned, there are other proposals already introduced in the literature moffat ; cham ; cham2 . In our proposed action the noncommutative spin connection variation gives the noncommutative ‘torsion condition’ (38), which is exactly solved by (41). This allows to introduce the tetrad at the commutative level in a consistent way (24). As a consequence, the corrections to Einstein gravitation can be, modulo a laborious algebra, straightforwardly computed.

In the process we have used the results from wess5 ; wess6 , developed there to construct the noncommutative versions of standard model and GUT’s. In the present paper, the Seiberg-Witten map for matter fields in the adjoint representation of any gauge group has been constructed in order to get the Seiberg-Witten map for the $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$-field.

The physical consequences of the our noncommutative extension of standard general relativity remain to be studied. An interesting possibility seems to be the study of inflation in this model. It is well known, in a very different physical setting, that the trace anomaly that leads to higher derivative corrections in the corresponding effective action, could produce inflation staro ; inflation .

Finally, the results presented here, can be regarded as a preliminary step for the construction of a noncommutative version of Ashtekar s hamiltonian formulation through a noncommutative Legendre transformation. Moreover, the computation of noncommutative gravitational effects can be done, for instance, from the corrections to known metrics. The details of these works will be reported elsewhere. Eventually, it would be interesting to search for a quantization of the results obtained in the present paper and proceed to find the corresponding loop quantum gravity.

Acknowledgments

This work was supported in part by CONACyT México Grants Nos. 37851E and 33951E, as well as by the sabbatical grants 020291 (C.R.) and 020331 (O.O.).