The central engines of radio-quiet quasars

Abstract: Two rival hypotheses have been proposed for the origin of the compact radio flux observed in radio-quiet quasars (RQQs). It has been suggested that the radio emission in these objects, typically some two or three orders of magnitude less powerful than in radio-loud quasars (RLQs), represents either emission from a circumnuclear starburst or is produced by radio jets with bulk kinetic powers 10^3 times lower than those of RLQs with similar luminosity ratios in other wavebands. We describe the results of high resolution (parsec-scale) radio-imaging observations of a sample of 12 RQQs using the Very Long Baseline Array (VLBA). We find strong evidence for jet-producing central engines in 8 members of our sample.

\section{Introduction \& Background}

The bimodality of radio luminosity in the quasar population (Miller,
Peacock \& Mead 1990) poses many questions about the fundamental
nature of the emission mechanisms in Radio-Quiet Quasars (RQQs) and
Radio-Loud Quasars (RLQs). The total radio luminosity is typically two
or three orders of magnitude lower for a RQQ than for a RLQ (Miller,
Rawlings \& Saunders 1993) with similar luminosity ratios in all other
wavebands.  The double, often co-linear, morphology exhibited by many
RLQs on arcsecond scales (e.g., Bridle et al.\ 1994) usually comprises
a bright central core with hotspots at the outermost edges of the
radio structure. In addition, lobes of {\em extended emission} are
seen which are fed by jets, via backflow out of the hotspots. In
contrast, radio images of RQQs often show merely a weak component,
coincident with the optical quasar nucleus, which in some cases is
resolved (Miller et al.\ 1993).

It has been proposed that the activity in RQQs is supplied by a
`starburst', i.e., strongly radiative supernovae and supernova
remnants (SNRs) in a very dense environment (Terlevich et al.\
1992). Sopp \& Alexander (1991) argued this on the basis of the
striking continuity between the far-infra red --- radio correlation of
RQQs and that of star-forming galaxies, ultra-luminous infra-red
galaxies and also Seyfert galaxies. This is offset from the same
correlation for RLQs and radio galaxies. Alternatively, if the energy
supply arises from accretion onto a massive black hole, the radio
emission from RQQs (as in RLQs) is caused by radio jets, but the bulk
kinetic powers of these jets are for some reason $\sim 10^3$ times
lower than those of RLQs (Miller et al.\ 1993).

To address the question of whether the radio emission in radio-quiet
quasars is associated with starbursts or with weak-jet producing
central engines, we have undertaken a programme of imaging a sample of
RQQs using VLBI techniques. This provides a definitive test between
the two rival hypotheses for the radio emission in a given RQQ, since
one can derive a size scale (from milli-arcsecond resolution
measurements) from which the observed luminosity is emitted and
compare this with the size scales on which SNRs are found to be
distributed. Moreover, a mere detection with VLBI implies the
brightness temperature of the emission $T_{\rm B}
\stackrel{>}{_{\sim}} 10^6$K, while typical supernovae/supernova
remnants have $T_{\rm B} \stackrel{<}{_{\sim}} 10^5$ K (Muxlow et al.\
1994).

We previously reported an experiment to image a well-known nearby
radio-quiet quasar (E\,1821+643) with the VLBA (Blundell et al.\
1996). In detecting it at 5 and 8 GHz on milli-arcsecond scales, we
found a high brightness temperature ($T_{\rm B} \sim 10^{9}\ {\rm K}$)
which precluded the possibility of star-formation as the origin of its
radio emission.  It was instead consistent with a mechanism similar to
the central engines postulated for radio-loud quasars. In order to
establish whether this result was typical of the radio-quiet quasar
population we performed detection experiments using the VLBA on a
sample of 12 RQQs, the results of which we present here.

We describe in Section 2 of this paper the details of our sample
selection and include a discussion of the conventional criteria used
to classify whether a particular quasar is radio-loud or
radio-quiet. In Section 3 we describe our observing method and we
summarise our results. In Section 4 we discuss the physical
implications of our results for the models discussed earlier; we also
explore when a quasar is appropriately classified as radio-quiet and
consider what may be the counterparts of the RQQ population which
undergo Doppler boosting.

\section{Sample selection}

Our goal was to select a sample of targets which were capable of being
imaged with the VLBA and representative of the RQQ population. We used
the Bright Quasar Survey (BQS) (Schmidt \& Green 1983) which has been
studied on arcsecond scales with the Very Large Array (VLA) and also
optically (Miller et al.\ 1993, Kellermann et al.\ 1994).  It is
necessary to impose a flux-density limit to allow a reasonable chance
of detection: if the core flux density of a RQQ is known to be $\ll 2$
mJy, then the source will not be detected in VLBA observations, even
if it is extremely compact, and we would learn nothing.  From the
sample studied by Miller et al.\ (1993) we selected those quasars
whose core had a peak flux density at 5 GHz (measured using the VLA in
A-array) $ \geq 2$ mJy/beam. We then selected any other quasars from
the sample of Kellermann et al.\ (1994) which were not in the sample
of Miller et al.\ and had a total flux density measured in VLA D-array
to be $\geq 2$ mJy.  It was then necessary to eliminate RLQs by
applying criteria which identify a quasar as radio-loud. There exist a
number of (largely overlapping) criteria which delimit the RLQ
population from the RQQ population: (1) a ratio $R$, of radio to
optical emission \mbox{{\raisebox{-0.4ex}{$\stackrel{>}{{\scriptstyle\sim}\ 10 has been taken to indicate that the quasar
is radio-loud (Kellermann et al.\ 1994). (2) If the radio
luminosity\footnote{The cosmology which has been assumed in this paper
is that ${\em H}_{\circ} = 50\,{\rm km\,s^{-1}\,Mpc^{-1}}$, ${\em
q_{\circ}} = 0$ and $\Lambda = 0$.}  is above $10^{25}\,{\rm
W\,Hz^{-1} }$ (Kellermann et al.\ 1994) the quasar is deemed to be
radio-loud. (3) The distinction between radio-loud and radio-quiet
quasars is apparent in the narrow-line luminosity versus radio
luminosity plane (Miller et al.\ 1993) where a clear gap in radio
luminosity separates the $z < 0.5$ RQQs from the $z < 0.5$ RLQs. Of
the radio-quiet quasars, Miller et al.\ (1993) identified a sub-set
they termed `radio-intermediate quasars' (RIQs) with luminosities at 5
GHz between $\sim 10^{23}$ and $10^{24}\, {\rm W\,Hz^{-1}\,sr^{-1}}$
(see Section 4.3); note the different units used by these authors
compared to Kellermann et al.\ (1994).

A quasar was retained in our sample if it was radio-quiet according to
at least one of the three above classifications.
Table~\ref{tab:source} lists the twelve objects selected, and a key in
this table indicates which of the three criteria described above led
to the inclusion of a particular quasar.  Two other objects met these
conditions but were excluded from the observing programme for the
following reasons: for 1138+04, the offset between the optical quasar
position and radio emission of 24 arcsec (Kellermann et al.\ 1994)
implied that this radio emission was not that of the core; 1634+70 was
excluded due to scheduling constraints.

\begin{table*}
\begin{tabular}{lllcrcllllll}
\hline
\multicolumn{1}{c}{PG name} &\multicolumn{1}{c}{Alternative} & \multicolumn{1}{c}{Key}  & \multicolumn{3}{c}{VLA 5 GHz}   &\multicolumn{3}{c}{Redshift} &\multicolumn{1}{c}{On-source} & \multicolumn{1}{c}{Phase} & \multicolumn{1}{c}{Date}        \\
                   &\multicolumn{1}{c}{name}        &                 & \multicolumn{3}{c}{flux density}&\multicolumn{3}{c}{ }        &\multicolumn{1}{c}{time (mins)}& \multicolumn{1}{c}{calibrator} &            \\[0.2cm]
0003+199           & Mkn 335               & PRQ             && 3.1$\phantom{^{\dag}}$      &&   & 0.025 &  &  48                 & 0007+171   &96 Jun 09   \\
0007+106           & III Zw 2              & \phantom{PRQ}I       && 155.0$\phantom{^{\dag}}$    &&   & 0.089 &  &  88                 & self       &96 Jun 09   \\
0157+001           & Mkn 1014              & PRQ             && 6.0$\phantom{^{\dag}}$      &&   & 0.164 &  &  48                 & 0215+015   &96 Jun 09   \\
0923+129           & Mkn 705               & PRQ             && 2.8$\phantom{^{\dag}}$      &&   & 0.029 &  &  92 + VLA           & J0921+1350 &96 Sep 22   \\
1116+215           & \multicolumn{1}{c}{--}         & PRQ             && 2.0$\phantom{^{\dag}}$      &&   & 0.177 &  &  69 + VLA           & J1125+2005 &96 Sep 22   \\
1216+069           & \multicolumn{1}{c}{--}         & PR\phantom{Q}I       && 5.0$\phantom{^{\dag}}$      &&   & 0.334 &  &  84                 & 1219+044   &96 Jun 15   \\
1222+22            & \multicolumn{1}{c}{--}         & \phantom{P}R\phantom{QI}  && 11.8$^{\dag}$          &&   & 2.046 &  &  48                 & 1222+216   &96 Jun 09   \\
1309+355           & \multicolumn{1}{c}{--}         & P\phantom{RQ}I       && 54.1$\phantom{^{\dag}}$     &&   & 0.184 &  &  48                 & 1315+346   &96 Jun 09   \\
1351+640           & \multicolumn{1}{c}{--}         & PRQ             && 20.0$\phantom{^{\dag}}$     &&   & 0.088 &  &  48                 & 1342+662   &96 Jun 09   \\
1407+26            & \multicolumn{1}{c}{--}         & \phantom{P}R\phantom{QI}  && 7.9$^{\dag}$           &&   & 0.94  &  &  84                 & 1404+286   &96 Jun 15  \\
1700+518           & \multicolumn{1}{c}{--}         & PR\phantom{Q}I       && 2.2$\phantom{^{\dag}}$      &&   & 0.292 &  &  69 + VLA           & J1705+5109 &96 Sep 22   \\
2209+184           & II Zw 171             & P\phantom{RQ}I       && 117.0$\phantom{^{\dag}}$    &&   & 0.07  &  &  48                 & 2209+236   &96 Jun 09   \\
\hline
\end{tabular}
\parbox{162mm} {\caption[sourcetable]{\label{tab:source} Observed VLBA
RQQ sample, including alternative names (if in common usage) and a key
classifying the sources as follows: P indicates that the 5-GHz
luminosity $< 10^{25}\ {\rm W\,Hz^{-1}}$; R indicates that $R < 10$; I
indicates RIQ while Q = RQQ, as designated by Miller et al.\ (1993).
The fifth column lists the core flux density at 5 GHz measured with
the VLA in A-array by Miller et al.\, except for those sources marked
$^{\dag}$ where this value is the integrated 5-GHz flux density
(measured by Kellermann et al.\ 1994). Redshifts of 0157+001 to
1351+640 (except for 1222+22) as listed above were taken from Miller
et al.\ (1992). The redshift of 1407+26 is quoted from McDowell et
al.\ (1995); the redshifts of 0003+199, 1222+22, 1700+518 and 2209+184
are quoted from Schmidt \& Green (1983); the redshift of 0007+106 is
quoted from Sargent (1970). This table also lists the on-source time
in minutes, indicates those sources for which the VLA was used in
phased-array mode, the phase calibrator used for the phase
referencing, and the date of the quoted observations.  }}
\end{table*}

\section{Observations \& Results}

All targets were observed with the 10-antenna VLBA of the National
Radio Astronomy Observatory at 8.42 GHz. With the exception of
0007+106 all targets were observed in a phase-referenced mode (Beasley
\& Conway 1995), i.e. frequent observations of an adjacent bright
source were made to provide phase corrections for the interferometer
array. For those targets with low flux density (as indicated in
Table~\ref{tab:source}) we used the VLA in phased array mode for extra
sensitivity.  The data were processed using the VLBA correlator which
generated four 8\,MHz continuum channels in the four Stokes
parameters.  Synthesis imaging of the data was performed using the
NRAO {\small ${\cal AIPS}$}\ system.

The results of our observations are presented in
Table~\ref{tab:meas_results}. We detected 8 out of 12 of the quasars
in our sample with brightness temperatures between $10^7$ and $10^9$ K
derived according to the following formula: $T_{\rm B} = \lambda^2
S_{\lambda} (1 + z) / (2 k_{\rm B} \Omega )$, where $T_{\rm B}$ is the
brightness temperature in Kelvin, $\lambda$ is the wavelength in
metres, $S_{\lambda}$ is the flux density in Jansky at wavelength
$\lambda$, $k_{\rm B}$ is the Boltzmann constant, $\Omega$ is the
solid angle subtended by the emitting region and $z$ is the redshift.
Images of all sources we detected are shown in Figure~\ref{fig:maps}.
We see structures indicative of jets in sources 1216+069, 1222+225,
1351+640 and 1407+26 although at these low brightness levels, and with
the short snapshot observations used in this detection experiment, it
is difficult to ascertain the reality of these features; more detailed
observations of one of these sources are underway. The detection of
1700+518 is only at $3\sigma$ significance, and we consider this
detection marginal.  We present the luminosity and a characteristic
physical size of the emitting region for each detected source in
Table~\ref{tab:der_results}, according to the cosmology assumed
throughout this paper.

\begin{figure*}
\centering
\begin{picture}(162,595)(0,0)
\put(-190,330){\special{psfile=./0007fig.ps
hoffset=0 voffset=0 hscale=45 vscale=45 angle=0}}
\put(21,330){\special{psfile=./1216fig.ps
hoffset=0 voffset=0 hscale=45 vscale=45 angle=0}}
\put(-190,180){\special{psfile=./1222fig.ps
hoffset=0 voffset=0 hscale=45 vscale=45 angle=0}}
\put(21,180){\special{psfile=./1309fig.ps
hoffset=0 voffset=0 hscale=45 vscale=45 angle=0}}
\put(-190,30){\special{psfile=./1351fig.ps
hoffset=0 voffset=0 hscale=45 vscale=45 angle=0}}
\put(21,30){\special{psfile=./1407fig.ps
hoffset=0 voffset=0 hscale=45 vscale=45 angle=0}}
\put(-190,-120){\special{psfile=./1700fig.ps
hoffset=0 voffset=0 hscale=45 vscale=45 angle=0}}
\put(21,-120){\special{psfile=./2209fig.ps
hoffset=0 voffset=0 hscale=45 vscale=45 angle=0}}
\end{picture}
\parbox{162mm}{ \caption[junk]{\label{fig:maps} VLBA images at 8.4
   GHz. The lowest solid contour levels in each case are: 0007+106,
   0.87 mJy/beam; 1216+069, 0.24 mJy/beam; 1222+22, 0.25 mJy/beam;
   1309+355, 1.2 mJy/beam; 1351+640, 0.28 mJy/beam; 1407+26, 0.20
   mJy/beam; 1700+518, 0.15 mJy/beam; 2209+184, 12.0 mJy/beam. Other
   solid contours are at $\sqrt{2}$, 2, 2$\sqrt{2}$\ldots times these
   values, while dashed contours are plotted at $-\sqrt{2}$ and $-1$
   times these values.  Extended structures indicative of jets are
   seen some of the maps although at these low brightness levels, and
   with the short snapshot observations used in this detection
   experiment, it is difficult to comment on the reality of these
   features.  }}
\end{figure*}

\subsection{Comparison of VLA and VLBA flux densities}

Although we are not in possession of multi-epoch radio images on these
milli-arcsec scales, comparison of our integrated VLBA flux densities
at 8.4 GHz with VLA flux densities at 5 GHz measured over a decade ago
(Miller et al.\ 1993, Kellermann et al.\ 1994) indicate differences of
only a factor of a few, which can be interpreted as arising from the
resolving out of some extended emission, in combination with spectral
differences and intrinsic radio variability.  In no case does the 8.4
GHz flux density measured with the VLBA in 1996 exceed the
measurements made at 5 GHz in the 1980s by Miller et al.\ and
Kellermann et al.  We are able to make a comparison between the
simultaneous VLA and VLBA measurements of flux densities for those 3
sources which were observed with the VLA in phased array, and
indicated in Table~\ref{tab:meas_results}.  For the two objects which
we did not detect with the VLBA but which we did observe with the VLA
the flux densities are very low (4 mJy for 0923+129 and 1.5 mJy for
1116+215).  For now we proceed with the question of the properties of
the central engine which must be present in RQQs to sustain, over many
years, the luminosities quoted in Table~\ref{tab:der_results}.

\section{Discussion}
\subsection{Implications}

Our high detection rate from these snapshot observations supports the
findings of our initial experiment on the RQQ, E1821+643 (Blundell et
al.\ 1996). The 4 RQQs which we did not detect in these observations
are those with the lower VLA flux densities (see
Table~\ref{tab:source}).

\begin{table*}
\begin{tabular}{lllrccrcl}
\multicolumn{1}{c}{PG name} & \multicolumn{1}{c}{R.A.}   & \multicolumn{1}{c}{Dec.}   & \multicolumn{2}{c}{VLBA}     & \multicolumn{1}{c}{Synthesised}     & \multicolumn{1}{c}{Total flux}   & \multicolumn{2}{c}{Total flux}   \\
                   & \multicolumn{1}{c}{J2000.0}& \multicolumn{1}{c}{J2000.0}&\multicolumn{2}{c}{8.4 GHz peak}& \multicolumn{1}{c}{beam}          & \multicolumn{1}{c}{density from} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{density from} \\
                   &                   &                   &\multicolumn{2}{c}{(mJy/beam)}& \multicolumn{1}{c}{({\sc fwhm}/mas)}& \multicolumn{1}{c}{VLBA (mJy)}   & \multicolumn{2}{c}{VLA (mJy)}          \\
\hline
\hline
0003+199 &  \multicolumn{1}{c}{--} & \multicolumn{1}{c}{--}  & $<0.8$  &        &                 &                       &\phantom{xxx} &    \\
0007+106 & 00 10 31.00587 & 10 58 29.5037  & 57.7    &        & $1.98 \times 0.83$ &  $68.3 \pm 1.4$ & &            \\
0157+001 &  \multicolumn{1}{c}{--} & \multicolumn{1}{c}{--}  & $<1.5$  &        &                 &                 & &            \\
0923+129 &  \multicolumn{1}{c}{--} & \multicolumn{1}{c}{--}  & $<0.4$  &        &                 &                 & & 4.1        \\
1116+215 &  \multicolumn{1}{c}{--} & \multicolumn{1}{c}{--}  & $<0.3$  &        &                 &                 & & 1.5        \\
1216+069 & 12 19 20.93171 & 06 38 38.4679  &  1.7    &        & $1.87 \times 0.84$ &   $2.0 \pm 0.3$ & &            \\
1222+22  & 12 25 27.40090 & 22 35 13.0522  &  2.1    &        & $1.88 \times 0.80$ &   $3.2 \pm 0.4$ & &            \\
1309+355 & 13 12 17.75278 & 35 15 21.0857  & 14.9    &        & $1.73 \times 0.80$ &  $23.8 \pm 2.1$ & &            \\
1351+640 & 13 53 15.83069 & 63 45 45.6856  &  1.5    &        & $1.66 \times 0.76$ &   $2.9 \pm 0.5$ & &            \\
1407+26  & 14 09 23.90866 & 26 18 21.0557  &  2.3    &        & $2.33 \times 0.98$ &   $4.7 \pm 0.4$ & &            \\
1700+518 & 17 01 24.82093 & 51 49 20.4995  &  0.8    &        & $1.98 \times 0.98$ &   $0.8 \pm 0.2$ & & 4.9        \\
2209+184 & 22 11 53.88876 & 18 41 49.8634  & 69.8    &        & $1.88 \times 0.80$ & $179.7 \pm 17.1$& &            \\
\hline\hline
\end{tabular}
\parbox{162mm}{\caption[sourcetable]{\label{tab:meas_results} Results
from the VLBA observations are tabulated: columns 2 and 3 list the
(J2000) Right Ascension and Declination respectively and column 4
lists the peak flux densities which were obtained using the
Gaussian-fitting task {\sc imfit} within {\small ${\cal AIPS}$}\ in units of
mJy/beam. Non-detections are quoted as $< 3\sigma$. Column 6 shows the
total flux density measured by the VLBA in mJy. Column 7 lists the VLA
flux densities measured simultaneously with the VLBA observations for
those sources where the VLA was used in phased array mode.}}
\end{table*}
\normalsize

\begin{table*}
\begin{tabular}{llllccrc}
\multicolumn{1}{c}{PG name} & \multicolumn{1}{c}{$T_{\rm B}$(K)}& \multicolumn{1}{c}{Deconvolved} & \multicolumn{1}{c}{Limit}      &\multicolumn{1}{c}{Log$_{10}(L_{8.4})$}         & \multicolumn{3}{c}{Emitting}    \\
                   &                          & \multicolumn{1}{c}{size (mas)}  & \multicolumn{1}{c}{$T_{\rm B}$}&\multicolumn{1}{c}{(${\rm W Hz^{-1} sr^{-1}}$)} & \multicolumn{3}{c}{region (pc)} \\
\hline
\hline
0003+199           &                          &                        &                       &     \multicolumn{1}{c}{--}                     & & \multicolumn{1}{c}{--} &          \\
0007+106           &  $7.5\times 10^8$           & $0.4 \times 0.4$          & $7.7\times 10^9$         &   23.22                               & & 2.9  &                   \\
0157+001           &                          &                        &                       &     \multicolumn{1}{c}{--}                     & & \multicolumn{1}{c}{--}  &         \\
0923+129           &                          &                        &                       &     \multicolumn{1}{c}{--}                     & & \multicolumn{1}{c}{--}  &         \\
1116+215           &                          &                        &                       &     \multicolumn{1}{c}{--}                     & & \multicolumn{1}{c}{--}  &         \\
1216+069           &  $2.8\times 10^7$           & $0.7 \times 0.4$          & $1.6\times 10^8$         &   22.92                               & & 8.0  &                   \\
1222+22            &  $8.3\times 10^7$           & $0.9 \times 0.4$          & $3.5\times 10^8$         &   24.99                               & & 19.4 &                   \\
1309+355           &  $2.5\times 10^8$           & \multicolumn{1}{c}{--}          &                       &   23.30                               & & 4.9  &                   \\
1351+640           &  $2.4\times 10^7$           & \multicolumn{1}{c}{--}          &                       &   21.60                               & & 2.4  &                   \\
1407+26            &  $1.1\times 10^9$           & $0.7 \times 0.4$          & $8.6\times 10^9$         &   25.56                               & & 24.3 &                   \\
1700+518           &  $1.0\times 10^7$           & \multicolumn{1}{c}{--}          &                       &   22.45                               & & 11.3 &                   \\
2209+184           &  $9.7\times 10^8$           & \multicolumn{1}{c}{--}          &                       &   23.09                               & & 2.8  &                   \\
\hline\hline
\end{tabular}
\parbox{162mm}{\caption[sourcetable]{\label{tab:der_results} Derived
physical parameters from the VLBA observations.  Column 2 shows the
brightness temperatures derived according to the formula quoted in the
main text, using the sizes of the synthesised beam and total VLBA flux
densities listed in Table 2.  Where our snapshot data permitted robust
and well-constained deconvolved sizes to the emitting regions to be
fitted, we tabulate those in column 3, together with re-derived
brightness temperatures using these deconvolved sizes and the peak
VLBA flux densities. Also listed are the luminosities (in ${\rm W\,
Hz^{-1} sr^{-1}}$) at 8.4 GHz of the compact emission of the RQQs we
detected together with the characteristic size of the emitting region
(this is the geometric mean of the major and minor axes of the
synthesised beam converted into a physical distance in parsecs within
the assumed cosmology). }}
\end{table*}
\normalsize

Table~\ref{tab:der_results} shows that the RQQs require central
engines which can supply luminosities of $10^{21.6}$ -- $10^{25.6}$
${\rm W\, Hz^{-1} sr^{-1}}$ arising from regions of a few cubic parsec.
The peak luminosity at 5 GHz of the most powerful supernova known
(1986J) (Rupen et al.\ 1987) is $\sim 10^{20} {\rm W\, Hz^{-1}
sr^{-1}}$ so between 10 and 1000 ($10^5$ for the two high redshift,
very luminous objects) of these close to peak luminosity would thus be
required to power a single RQQ.  This would require a very sustained
supernova rate with an unprecendented supernova space density: the
(conservatively derived) values for the size of the emitting region
yield volumes between $10^5$ -- $10^7$ times smaller than in the
starburst model of Terlevich and Boyle (1993) or observed in the M82
starburst galaxy (Muxlow et al.\ 1994).  The brightness temperature
quantifies this by consideration of the flux emanating from a given
solid angle --- thus radio emission powered by a starburst would not
be expected to have a high brightness temperature because of the
spatial separation expected for the supernovae.

These results strongly suggest that for these radio-quiet quasars
which we detected, their radio emission is {\em not} dominated by
starbursts and imply that they have central engines similar to those
in RLQs, but producing only weak radio jets.

In a recent study (Falcke, Patnaik \& Sherwood 1996) high brightness
temperatures were found for three RIQs (which are common to our
sample) based on fits to the emission region size deconvolved from the
synthesised beam of the telescope. Our observations being considerably
shorter do not in all cases allow us to similarly obtain robust, well
constrained, fits to the sizes of the emission-regions.

\subsection{When should a quasar be deemed radio-quiet?}

We return to the question of when a quasar should be appropriately
classified as radio-loud. Of the three classifications outlined in the
Section 2, none considers the contribution to the total radio emission
from cores which might be Doppler boosted, if the cores are indeed
powered by relativistic jets. The bimodality in radio-loudness would
undoubtedly be more pronounced if instead of comparisons based on
total radio luminosity, the `total minus core' radio luminosity,
(i.e., only the contribution from unbeamed emission), were to be used
(see e.g., Kukula et al.\ 1998). It is imperative to ascertain whether
the radio flux densities quoted from the literature for those quasars
believed to be non-radio-loud, which we have detected with the VLBA,
are representing the extent of the radio-emission from these objects,
and thus that our detections are of genuinely radio-quiet quasars. We
thus checked the NVSS survey (Condon 1994) (VLA D-array 1.4-GHz maps),
the 6C (Hales et al.\ 1988, Hales et al.\ 1990) and the 7C (Waldram et
al.\ 1996) surveys at 151 MHz for evidence of diffuse extended lobe
emission related to these RQQs\footnote{1222+22 and 1407+26 are in
areas of sky covered by the 7C survey (Waldram et al.\ 1996).
1309+355 is in an area of sky covered by the 6C-II survey (Hales et
al.\ 1988).  1700+518 and 1351+640 are in an area of sky covered by
6C-III (Hales et al.\ 1990).}.  For the 6C and 7C surveys the {\sc
rms} background measurements are roughly $\sim$ 25 -- 50 mJy/beam in
the absence of any confusion. For the NVSS survey the {\sc rms}
background is $\sim 0.2$ mJy/beam.  We found {\em no} evidence of any
related extended lobe emission for our detected RQQs. We therefore
believe that all of the objects we detected originally classified as
radio-quiet are correctly classifed as such, although their
radio-quietness would be more dramatically evident were the criteria
to be based on extended radio emission only.

\subsection{What are the boosted counterparts of RQQs?}
\label{sec:riq}
One important question is whether the jets in RQQs are indeed
relativistic near the central engine (as in RLQs), albeit with a much
lower bulk kinetic power. If so a subset of the RQQ population, namely
those whose jet axes are oriented close to our line-of-sight, would be
expected to exhibit Doppler boosted emission. Such a scenario was
first proposed by Miller et al.\ (1993) based on a study of the [OIII]
luminosity versus radio luminosity plane for a sample of optically
selected quasars (those quasars from BQS with $z < 0.5$). They found
that radio-loud objects exist only at high [OIII] luminosity and that
for RQQs there is a tight correlation between the radio and the [OIII]
luminosity. A number of objects in the radio-quiet region of the plot
did not lie so tightly on this correlation; Miller et al.\ suggested
that their location on the plane could be explained if their radio
emission was Doppler boosted, i.e., they were the beamed counterparts
of RQQs (with Lorentz $\gamma \sim 5$); they termed such objects
radio-intermediate quasars. If the criteria for radio-loudness is
based on extended emission alone (as discussed in Section 4.2) then
the RIQs are clearly members of the RQQ population.  The cores of RIQs
might be expected to have higher $T_{\rm B}$ than objects whose radio
emission is not Doppler boosted.  While there is no such clear
correlation from the numbers in this small sample, we note that the
comparison of brightness temperatures is an important tool in testing
Miller et al.'s hypothesis.

A number of the sources we detected are among those deemed by Miller
et al.\ as RIQs. It is therefore conceivable that the RIQs represent
those RQQs with a jet-producing central engine while the true
radio-quiet objects lack such a central engine --- but the dichotomy
posed at the beginning of the paper is little changed, as it is still
necessary to explain why the RIQ population cannot form the powerful
radio jets seen in the RLQ population, even though there is now direct
evidence that some contain jet-producing central engines.

\subsection{Conclusions}

Our results have shown that some radio-quiet quasars show evidence for
a central engine resembling those in radio-loud quasars; the evidence
we present is consistent with the sample objects being boosted
examples of a homogeneous population of radio-quiet quasars with
relativistic jets.  Our study underlines the need to address the
important question of why powerful radio jets are not seen in RQQs
even though a significant fraction of their central engines possess
the essential characteristics of those in RLQs; we note that there
have been various suggested explanations of this, including for
example, lack of black-hole spin (Blandford 1993) or the necessary
presence of a hot atmosphere around the nucleus (Fabian \& Rees 1995).

\section*{Acknowledgments}

The VLBA and VLA are facilities of the National Radio Astronomy
Observatory, which is operated by Associated Universities, Inc., under
co-operative agreement with the US National Science Foundation.  This
research has made use of the NASA/IPAC Extragalactic Database (NED)
which is operated by the Jet Propulsion Laboratory, California
Institute of Technology, under contract with the National Aeronautics
and Space Administration. We thank Dr Craig Walker \& Dr Steve
Rawlings for helpful discussions, Dr Stephen Blundell for a careful
reading of the manuscript and the referee, Dr Robert Laing, for
constructive comments.


How good is good enough for COVID19 apps? The influence of benefits, accuracy, and privacy on willingness to adopt

Abstract: A growing number of contact tracing apps are being developed to complement manual contact tracing. A key question is whether users will be willing to adopt these contact tracing apps. In this work, we survey over 4,500 Americans to evaluate (1) the effect of both accuracy and privacy concerns on reported willingness to install COVID19 contact tracing apps and (2) how different groups of users weight accuracy vs. privacy. Drawing on our findings from these first two research questions, we (3) quantitatively model how the amount of public health benefit (reduction in infection rate), amount of individual benefit (true-positive detection of exposures to COVID), and degree of privacy risk in a hypothetical contact tracing app may influence American's willingness to install. Our work takes a descriptive ethics approach toward offering implications for the development of policy and app designs related to COVID19.

\section{Introduction}
A growing number of coronavirus (COVID19) contact tracing apps are being developed and released with the goal of tracking and reducing the spread of COVID19~\cite{AScrambl95:online}. These apps are designed to complement manual contact tracing efforts using location data or Bluetooth communication to automatically detect if a user may have been exposed to the virus~\cite{chan2020pact, troncoso2020decentralized}.  Unlike manual contact tracing, which an investigator reaches out directly to affected parties, the benefits of these apps for public health scale {\em quadratically} with participation~\cite{chan2020pact}.  This is because both data collection and data distribution are part of the apps operation.  Thus, it is critical to understand that factors that determine if people will be willing to adopt these apps.

There are a large number of considerations that may influence users willingness to adopt~\cite{redmiles2020user}.  For example, a person may weigh the features the app's offer, the app's benefits to themselves and their community~\cite{simko2020}, the provider offering the app~\cite{WillAmer35:online}, how well the app will preserve the user's privacy~\cite{troncoso2020decentralized,chan2020pact}, and the app's accuracy.  Understanding the impact of each of these factors can help app developers make design decisions that can maximize their impact.

Drawing from the idea of descriptive ethics as a more fair approach to setting societal norms~\cite{grgic2018human,gert2002definition}, in this work we use surveys to evaluate {\em how well} COVID19 apps need to function for users to be willing to adopt the apps. We present the results of a series of surveys of a total of 4,615 Americans, sampled using both crowd-sourcing and online survey panels that can satisfy census-representative demographic quotas.

There are many ways to measure how well a COVID19 app works. From a public health perspective, reducing infection rate (i.e., basic reproduction number) is a key measurement of success. However, in order to understand individual's choices when it comes to adopting an app, we must also consider what it means for a COVID19 app to work well for {\em the individual} who has the app installed.

Thus, we examine not only the societal-level, public health benefit of infection rate reduction, but also how app accuracy and app privacy, risk of the app exposing information collected by the app to others, influence reported willingness to adopt a COVID19 app.  Within app accuracy, we consider both false negatives, the app failing to detect an exposure to COVID19, and false positives, the app falsely notifying the user that they were exposed when they were not. Understanding how rates of app failure may influence adoption allow us to estimate user response to potential app designs. For example, Saxena et. al. ~\cite{Smartpho90:online} have shown that using Bluetooth as a method for detecting proximity may be innately error prone, estimating an approximate error rate of 7-15\% (including both false positive and false negative rates). Our results allow us to estimate user response to such error rates.

In summary, we address the following three research questions:
\begin{enumerate}
\item [\textbf{(RQ1)}] Do both accuracy (precision and recall) \& privacy influence whether people want to install a COVID app?
\medskip
\item [\textbf{(RQ2)}]   Do different types of people weight accuracy or privacy more heavily?
\medskip
\item [\textbf{(RQ3)}]   How much public health benefit, accuracy, and/or privacy is necessary for people to want to adopt COVID19 apps?
\end{enumerate}

We find that:
\begin{itemize}
    \item Between 70-80\% of Americans report being willing to install an app that is ``perfectly'' private and/or accurate, a significant increase from the 50-60\% who are willing to install an app with unspecified privacy or accuracy~\cite{WillAmer35:online, Washingt8:online}.
    \item False negatives have a significantly stronger influence on reported willingness than false positives or privacy risks.
    \item Reported willingness to install correlates  with the public health benefit and/or personal health benefit of a contact tracing app. Specifically, the majority of Americans report being willing to install an app that offers at least a 50\% improvement in public health or in personal safety over the baseline rate offered when not using the app.
\end{itemize}

\section{Methodology}
\input{methods}

\section{Results}
\input{results}

\section*{Acknowledgements}
With thanks to Eric Horvitz for the idea of investigating quantiative tradeoffs in public benefit, accuracy, and privacy. With thanks to Cormac Herley and Carmela Troncoso for survey feedback and general contact tracing conversations that contributed to this paper.

This work was funded by Microsoft Research.

\bibliographystyle{acm}

\subsection{RQ1 and RQ2 Survey}
\label{sec:s1methods}
In this first survey we sought to understand how accuracy and/or privacy considerations might influence willingness to adopt (RQ1) and how respondent demographics and experiences might affect the relative weight of these considerations (RQ2).

We used a vignette survey~\cite{atzmuller2010experimental} to examine these questions as vignette surveys are known to maximize external validity.

\textbf{Questionnaire.} Our questions were framed around a contact-tracing app scenario. Half of the respondents were placed in the proximity contact tracing scenario while the other half were placed in the location scenario.

The proximity scenario was phrased as:
\begin{quote}
    Imagine that there is a mobile phone app intended to help combat the coronavirus. This app will collect information about who you have been near (within 6 feet), without revealing their identities.\\

The app will use this information to alert you if you have been near someone who was diagnosed with coronavirus. If you decide to inform the app that you have been diagnosed with coronavirus, the app will inform those you've been near that they are at risk, without revealing your identity.
\end{quote}

The location scenario was phrased as:

\begin{quote}
    Imagine that there is a mobile phone app intended to help combat the coronavirus. This app will collect information about your location.\\

    The app will use this information to notify you, without revealing anyone's identity:
\begin{itemize}
\item if you have been near someone who tested positive for coronavirus
\item about locations near you that were recently visited by people who tested positive for coronavirus\\
 \end{itemize}

If you decide to report to the app that you have been diagnosed with coronavirus, the app will inform those you've been near that they are at risk without revealing your identity.
\end{quote}

Participants were then routed to a set of control questions or a set of experimental questions regarding accruacy and privacy (in randomized order). All participants were asked ``Would you install this app?'' after a given question, with answer choices ``Yes'', ``No'', and ``It depends on the [risk, chance of information being revealed, etc.]''.

\textit{Control.} We had three control conditions (respondents saw only one of these three questions).

Perfect accuracy:
\begin{quote}
    Imagine that this app will work perfectly.\\

It will never fail to notify you when you are at risk nor will it ever incorrectly notify you when you are not at risk.
\end{quote}

Perfect privacy:
\begin{quote}
    Imagine that this app perfectly protects your privacy.\\

It will never reveal any information about you to the US government, to a tech company, to your employer, or to anyone else.
\end{quote}

Perfect accuracy and privacy:
\begin{quote}
    Imagine that this app works perfectly and protects your privacy perfectly.\\

It will never fail to notify you when you are at risk nor will it ever incorrectly notify you when you are not at risk. It will also never reveal any information about you to the US government, to a tech company, to your employer, or to anyone else.
\end{quote}

\textit{Experimental.}
These participants were asked about accuracy and privacy, in randomized order.

Accuracy (false negatives):
\begin{quote}
    Imagine that this app occasionally fails to notify you when you have been near someone who was diagnosed with coronavirus.
\end{quote}

Accuracy (false positives):
\begin{quote}
    Imagine that this app occasionally notifies you that you have been near someone who has coronavirus when you actually have not been exposed.
\end{quote}

Privacy:
\begin{quote}
    Imagine that this app might reveal information about [who you have been near/your location] to [entity]. This information may be used for a purpose unrelated to the fight against coronavirus.
\end{quote}
We asked about four entities, drawn from the list of 10 examined by Redmiles and Hargittai~\cite{WillAmer35:online}: ``non-profit institutions verified by the government'', ``technology companies'', ``the US government'', and ``your employer''.

\textbf{Validation.} The questionnaire design was validated through expert reviews with multiple external researchers. Additionally, three attention check questions were included, one general attention check and two scenario-specific attention checks that ensured respondents understood the scenarios described.

\textbf{Sample.} 789 Americans answered our survey. The sample was quota sampled by Cint to be representative of the US population demographics on age, gender, income, and race.

\textbf{Analysis.} We answered RQ1 using $X^2$ proportion tests to compare responses to our different sets of questions. We answered RQ2 by constructing two mixed effects binomial logistic regression models. In both models, our dependent variable was willingness to install the app, with ``Yes'' and ``It depends on the risk'' grouped together as a positive outcome and ``No'' was treated as a negative outcome. We model responses to the accuracy and privacy questions separately, controlling for data type and entity, in the privacy model, and both data and accuracy type in the accuracy model. We included as dependent variables the respondents' age, gender, race, internet skill (as measured using the Web Use Skill Index~\cite{hargittai2009update}), level of educational attainment, party affiliation, and if they know someone who died due to complications from COVID19.  Finally, we include a mixed effects term to account for our within subjects design.

\subsection{RQ3 Survey}
In this survey we sought to evaluate how people's reported willingness to install coronavirus apps correlates with the \textit{amount} of public health (infection rate reduction) and individual health (notification of at risk status -- e.g., accuracy) benefit of a hypothetical coronavirus tracking app.

\textbf{Questionnaire.} All questions, except one control condition (FN app control, addressed below), were asked in the context of the following scenario. As the \textit{type} of information compromised, as well as the entity that could compromise the information had relatively little effect on willingness to install in our first survey (see Section~\ref{sec:results:s1privacy}), we consider only proximity-based data in this scenario. Future work may wish to replicate these results for location information.
\begin{quote}
    Please consider the following scenario. Imagine that public health workers will notify you if they are able to determine that you have recently been near (within 6 feet) someone who was diagnosed with coronavirus.
    \begin{itemize}
        \item You do not have to do anything in order for the public health workers to monitor whether you have recently been near someone diagnosed with coronavirus.
        \item However, the public health workers are not aware of every time you are near someone diagnosed with coronavirus.\\
    \end{itemize}

Imagine that there is also a mobile phone app available that will alert you if you have been within 6 feet of someone diagnosed with coronavirus.
\begin{itemize}
    \item The app will do this by collecting information about who you have been within 6 feet of (who you have been "near").
    \item The app will not reveal the identity of the people you have been near.
\end{itemize}
\end{quote}

Participants were then assigned to one of the branches in Table~\ref{tab:rq3conditions}.
\begin{table}
\centering
\scriptsize
\begin{tabular}{llll}
    Condition & Questions Asked & Without-App Baseline & Variable\\
    \hline
    Public benefit & Implicit privacy assessment, public benefit & 3\% IHME infection rate~\cite{Infectio80:online} & Infection reduction (97\%, 83\%, 66\%, 50\%, 33\%, 10\%)\\
    False negative & Implicit privacy assessment, FN & 1 in 100 exposures detected & FN rate (90\%, 50\%, 10\%) + control (99\%) \\
    False positive & Implicit privacy assessment, FP & 1 in 100 exposures detected without app, all with app & FP rate (1\%, 10\%, 25\%, 50\%)\\
    Privacy & Privacy, FN & -- &  Risk of compromise (1 in 10, 1 in 100, 1 in 1000) \& FN as above\\
    \hline
\end{tabular}
\label{tab:rq3conditions}
\caption{Survey branches in RQ3 survey}
\end{table}

No information in this survey was expressed in terms of percentages, due to a plethora of research in health risk and numeracy showing that people interpret rates far more accurately than percentages~\cite{riederer2018put,keller2009effect}. Below we describe exactly how each of the questions referenced in Table~\ref{tab:rq3conditions} was asked in our survey.

\textit{Implicit privacy.} Pilot tests of our survey revealed that people had implicit privacy perceptions of the app described, which were influencing their willingness to adopt the apps. We used a modified version of the Paling Perspective scale~\cite{paling2003strategies} -- a well validated tool for eliciting health risk perception -- to assess respondents' perception of the likelihood that information collected by this app would be compromised~\footnote{This digital safety risk-perception assessment technique was developed and validated by Cormac Herley, Elissa M. Redmiles, and Siddharth Suri; paper under review.}. This measurement allows us to (a) report on people's perceptions of the likelihood that information from a coronavirus app will be compromised, (b) control for the effect of differing implicit privacy perceptions on willingness to install, and (c) validate the influence of these privacy perceptions by comparing willingness to install given an implicit privacy perception vs. an explicit one that we set by telling the participant the risk their privacy will be compromised (described in the next section).

The question we used to assess implicit privacy belief was:
\begin{quote}
    Studies show that despite best attempts to protect the data of those who use this app, some people may have information about who they have been near compromised and used for purposes other than the fight against coronavirus.\\

Please indicate on the chart below how many app users you think will have this information compromised over the next year.
    \begin{figure}[h!]
        \centering
        \includegraphics[width=0.7\textwidth]{figures/covidrisk.png}
    \end{figure}
\end{quote}

\textit{Explicit Privacy.} In order to understand how different privacy risks impacted respondents' reported willingness to install coronavirus apps we asked some participants about their willingness to install in the context of explicitly known (as opposed to implicitly perceived, as aforementioned) privacy risks. We asked about explicit risk using the following question:
\begin{quote}
    Studies show that despite best attempts to protect the data of those who use this app, some people may have information about who they have been near compromised and used for purposes other than the fight against coronavirus.\\

    \textit{X} out of 1000 people who use this app will have this information compromised.
\end{quote}

We also asked all participants in this branch the false negative question (below) in order to be able to cross-validate the impact of explicit declaration of privacy risk vs. the effect of implicit perception of that risk on willingness to install. As it would not make much sense to assess implicit risk and then ask respondents whether they would install given their implicit perception of risk, privacy questions need to be paired with a benefit question. We chose to make our comparison using false negative questions since the results of survey 1 showed that false negatives were equally as important in users' consideration of whether to install as was privacy.

\textit{False negative.} We asked respondents whether they would be willing to install an app that could detect N out of 100 exposures to coronavirus compared to manual contact tracing, which could detect exposures a baseline number of times: 1 out of 100. The question was phrased as follows:
\begin{quote}
    Imagine that you are exposed to someone who has coronavirus 100 times over the next year.\\

\textbf{If you do not use the app}, 1 out of 100 times public health workers will be able to detect and notify you that you were exposed.\\

If you use the app, \textit{FN} out of 100 times the app will be able to detect and notify that you that you were exposed.
\end{quote}

To compare willingness to install a 1\% effective app as a baseline, we also had a FN control condition. This condition consisted of a scenario that did not describe manual contact tracing, but just described the app (in the same way as above), which respondents were told could detect 1 in 100 exposures (the same as the manual contact tracing option offered in the other conditions).

\textit{False positive.} We asked respondents whether they would be willing to install an app that detected all exposures to coronavirus\footnote{We examined an app with 0\% FN as an upper bound on respondents' tolerance to FP.}, but had N out of 100 additional false negatives. The question was phrased as follows:
\begin{quote}
    Imagine that you are exposed to someone who has coronavirus 100 times over the next year.\\

\textbf{If you do not use the app}, 1 out of 100 times public health workers will be able to detect and notify you that you were exposed.\\

The app is not perfect. \textbf{If you use the app}, the app will correctly notify you every time that you were exposed (100 out of 100 times). The app will also incorrectly notify you an additional FP times, when you were not actually exposed.
\end{quote}

\textit{Public Health Benefit.} Finally, some respondents were assigned to a branch that evaluated how reduction in infection rate among app users would influence people's willingness to install an app.

We chose 3\% as the baseline infection rate without app use as this is the currently estimated U.S. infection rate by the IHME~\cite{Infectio80:online}.

\begin{quote}
    Studies show that 30 out of 1000 people who do not use the app will be infected with coronavirus in the next year.\\

    \textit{H} out of 1000 people who use the app will be infected with coronavirus in the next year.\\
\end{quote}

\textbf{Validation.} The questionnaire design was validated through expert reviews with multiple external researchers. Additionally, three attention check questions were included, one general and two scenario-specific, as in Survey 1.

\textbf{Sample.} 3,826 Amazon Mechanical Turk workers responded to our survey. These workers were split into different survey branches, as aforementioned, so all results sections note the number of respondents used in a particular analysis.

\textbf{Analysis.} We analyze the data obtained in this survey descriptively, through data visualization, and using binomial logistic regression analysis: with willingness to install as the dependent variable and the dependent variables of the varied factor (e.g., chance of FN) and perceived implicit privacy risk. To evaluate the impact of privacy on decision making we use a $X^2$ proportion test to compare the proportion of respondents willing to install given some FN rate in the implicit and explicit privacy conditions.

\subsection{Limitations} As with all surveys, the answers represented in these results are people's self-reported intentions regarding how to behave. As shown in prior literature on security, these intentions are likely to align directionally with actual behavior, but are likely to over-estimate actual behavior~\cite{redmiles2018asking}. The goal of this work is to show \textit{how} willingness to adopt may be influeced by privacy/accuracy considerations, and thus the precise numeric estimates should not be interpreted as precise adoption estimates.

Additionally, regarding the RQ3 survey, there are always concerns about the generalizability of crowdsourced results. To address these concerns, we also conducted the RQ1,RQ2 survey on Amazon Mechanical Turk. We found only one significant difference (with small effect size) in the AMT results as compared to the online survey panel results. Due to the quantitative nature of the RQ3 survey and the sample size required, and our comfort in the relatively representative nature of AMT results on this particular topic verified by our RQ1, RQ2 comparison as well as prior work on the generalizability of AMT results in security and privacy surveys~\cite{redmiles2019well}, we chose to proceed with AMT for RQ3.

\subsection{Both accuracy \& privacy influence whether people want to install a COVID app}

The results of our first survey, shown in Figure~\ref{fig:s1results} illustrate that both accuracy and privacy do indeed significantly ($X^2$ tests in comparison to the control conditions, $p<0.05$, Bonferroni-Holm multiple testing correction (BH correction)).

We find that respondents did not significantly differentiate between perfect privacy vs. perfect accuracy ($X^2$ prop. test, p=0.178,  BH correction), perfect accuracy vs. both perfect accuracy and privacy ($X^2$ prop. test, p=0.670,  BH correction), of perfect privacy vs. both perfect accuracy and privacy ($X^2$ prop. test, p=0.069,  BH correction).

On the other hand, respondents were 8\% less likely to install an app with false negatives, regardless of the number of the FN rate, than one with false positives, regardless of the FP rate ($X^2$ prop. test, p=0.003,  BH correction). Respondents were similarly less likely to install an app with false negatives, regardless of the FN rate, than one with privacy leaks to any of the entities examined ($X^2$ prop. test, p=0.003,  BH correction). Respondents were equally as likely to install an app with false positives as one with privacy leaks ($X^2$ prop. test, p=0.609,  BH correction).

Respondents were more likely to say that their decision to install would depend on the risk of false positives (31\%) or false negatives (32\%) than the risk of a privacy leak (17\% across entities).

Finally, respondents' reported willingness to install did not significantly differ ($X^2$ prop. tests, p>0.05, BH correction) based on what data the app might leak to a particular entity, except for hypothetical leaks to the respondents employer (Figure~\ref{fig:s1results-location-proximity}). Only 23\% of respondents were willing to install an app that might leak their locations to their employer while 31\% were willing to install an app that might leak information about who they have been near (their proximity data) to their employer. The next section provides regression comparisons of willingness to install based on the entity to which the information was leaked, and also control for data type differences (finding no significant differences).

\subsection{Some Americans weigh accuracy or privacy considerations more highly than others}
In order to examine whether some American's weighed accuracy or privacy considerations more highly than others, we constructed two mixed effects logistic regression models as described in Section~\ref{sec:s1methods}.

\begin{table}[ht]
\centering
\small
\begin{tabular}{lrll}

 Variable & Odds Ratio & CI & p value \\
  \hline
 Question: False Positive & 1.65 & [1.18, 2.32] & $<$ 0.01** \\
Data: proximity & 0.94 & [0.55, 1.61] & 0.83 \\
Age & 0.99 & [0.97, 1] & 0.1 \\
Gender: female & 1.27 & [0.2, 8.21] & 0.8 \\
Know someone who died from COVID19 & 5.56 & [2.35, 13.13] & $<$ 0.01*** \\
High medical risk & 1.60 & [0.84, 3.03] & 0.15 \\
Internet Skill & 1.77 & [1.22, 2.56] & $<$ 0.01** \\
Pol. leaning: Democrat & 0.60 & [0.34, 1.05] & 0.07 \\
Edu.: BA+ & 1.24 & [0.61, 2.51] & 0.55 \\
Edu.: SC & 1.54 & [0.7, 3.36] & 0.28 \\

   \hline
\end{tabular}
\label{tab:regression:s1accuracy}
\caption{Mixed effects logistic regression model of willingness to install apps with accuracy errors. Question baseline is FN, data baseline is location, political leaning baseline is Republican, mixed effects term controls for within-subjects design.}
\end{table}
\begin{table}
\centering
\small
\begin{tabular}{lrll}
Variable & Odds\_Ratio & CI & p\_value \\
  \hline
Entity: Tech Company & 1.18 & [0.79, 1.76] & 0.41 \\
Entity: Employer & 0.81 & [0.54, 1.2] & 0.29 \\
Entity: NonProfit & 2.38 & [1.6, 3.56] & $<$ 0.01*** \\
Data: proximity & 1.97 & [0.92, 4.21] & 0.08 \\
Age & 0.93 & [0.91, 0.95] & $<$ 0.01*** \\
Gender: female & 0.38 & [0.17, 0.82] & 0.01* \\
Know someone who died from COVID19 & 1.14 & [0.37, 3.52] & 0.82 \\
High medical risk & 1.95 & [0.79, 4.8] & 0.15 \\
Internet Skill & 1.78 & [1.23, 2.58] & $<$ 0.01** \\
Pol. Leaning: Democrat & 2.70 & [1.23, 5.94] & 0.01* \\
Edu.: BS+ & 0.55 & [0.2, 1.51] & 0.25 \\
Edu.: SC & 0.82 & [0.27, 2.47] & 0.72 \\
   \hline
\end{tabular}
\label{tab:regression:s1privacy}
\caption{Mixed effects logistic regression model of willingness to install apps with privacy errors. See Table~\ref{tab:regression:s1accuracy} caption for more information.}
\end{table}

We find that those who know someone who died from COVID19 are over 5$\times$ as likely as those who do not to be willing to install an app that has errors in accuracy. Additionally, we validate that even when controlling for demographic variance, respondents are more comfortable with false positives than false negatives: respondents are 65\% more likely to report that they would install an app with false positives than one with false negatives.

Respondents were more comfortable installing an app with potential privacy leaks to a non-profit organization verified by the government an app with potential leaks to any other entity (their employer, a technology company, or the U.S. government). Those who identify as Democrats are nearly $3\times$ as likely as those who identify as Republican to be willing to install an app with privacy risks. Finally, those who are younger and women are less likely to report that they would install an app with privacy errors. This gender finding aligns with past work showing that women may be more privacy sensitive than men~\cite{redmiles2018net,hoy2010gender}.

Finally, those who have higher internet skill are more willing to install an app that has either errors in accuracy or privacy leaks, likely because those with higher skill are more likely to install COVID19 apps in general~\cite{WillAmer35:online}.

\subsection{\textit{Amount} of public health and individual benefit influence willingness to install}
In the findings above, we validate that the individual considerations of accuracy and privacy both impact reported willingness to install. In our second survey we examine whether we can model how the quantitative \textit{amount} of public health (i.e., infection rate reduction) and individual benefit (i.e., FN and FP rates) influences willingness to install. Figure~\ref{fig:isolines} provides an overview of these findings.

\begin{figure}[t]
    \centering
    \includegraphics[width=0.6\textwidth]{figures/infectionrate.png}
    \vfill
     \includegraphics[width=0.45\textwidth]{figures/FN.png} \hfill \includegraphics[width=0.45\textwidth]{figures/FP.png}
    \caption{Relationship between willingness to install and amount of public health benefit (top) and individual benefit (bottom).}
    \label{fig:isolines}
\end{figure}

To examine the relationship between amount of benefit and willingness to install beyond visual inspection, we construct logistic regression models. We find that, for every 1\% reduction to infection rate offered by the app, respondents are 5\% more likely to report that they would install (O.R., 95\% CI: [0.94, 0.97], $p<0.001$)

Individual benefit has a relatively smaller effect on willingness to install. For every 1\% increase (O.R. 95\% CI: [1.01, 1.02], $p<0.001$) in app sensitivity (1\% decrease in false negative rate) respondents are 1\% more likely to report that they would install. Finally, for every 1\% decrease (O.R. 95\% CI: [0.98,0.99], $p<0.001$) in false positive rate, respondents are 1\% more likely to report that they would install.

\subsection{Implicitly perceived risk of privacy leak in COVID apps influences willingness to adopt; risk of COVID app privacy leak perceived by respondents as between 0.01\% - 0.001\%}
\label{sec:results:s2privacy}

In our second survey, we not only measured willingness to install based on amount of benefit but we also measured implicit privacy risk perception. In this section we briefly summarize how likely respondents thought it was that information from a COVID19 contact tracing app would be leaked and we confirm the results of survey one: that privacy risk, even when unmentioned, influences willingness to adopt a COVID19 app.

Figure~\ref{fig:privacyrisk} summarizes respondents implicit perceptions of the risk of a privacy leak of COVID19 app information in the next year. The median respondent (n=1,610) reported perceived the risk of a privacy leak of app information in the next year as between 0.01 and 0.001\%, equivalent to the annual risk of an American having unattended property stolen.  82\% of respondents reported perceiving the risk as between 0.1\% and 0.00001\%.

\begin{figure}
    \centering
    \includegraphics[width=0.9\textwidth]{figures/privacy.png}
    \caption{Respondents implicit perceptions of the chance that information from a COVID app would be compromised in the next year.}
    \label{fig:privacyrisk}
\end{figure}

Finally, we compare the proportion of respondents who were willing to install a COVID19 app given an explicit statement of privacy risk (privacy risks were drawn from the portion of the implicit risk distribution reported by the majority of respondents) vs. their own implicit perception. We find no significant different between the proportion of respondents who were willing to install an app with a given false negative rate when relying on their own implicit privacy assumption and the proportion who were willing to install given an explicit statement of the risk of privacy leak.

A regression model of willingness to install in the explicit condition finds a significant relationship between risk perception and willingness to install (O.R.: 1.80, 95\% CI: [1.31, 2.44], $p<0.001$). This lends support for our implicit privacy risk measurements and suggests that these implicit risk perceptions affect willingness to install similarly to explicit risk statements.

Finally, further confirming the relevance of all three components studied in this paper -- benefits, accuracy, and privacy -- in users' consideration of whether to install, when we add implicit privacy risk as a factor to the regression models for willingness to install dependent on public health and individual benefit, we find that it is significant in all three models.

Computers and Society (cs.CY); Cryptography and Security (cs.CR); Human-Computer Interaction (cs.HC); Machine Learning (cs.LG)


Abstract: The possibility that the major part of all extrasolar hadronic cosmic rays with energies above 10 MeV/n is of extragalactic origin is discussed. Recent observational results on the galactocentric cosmic-ray density gradient and very high gamma-ray emission do not support expectations from the simplest models with a Galactic origin of cosmic rays. The hypothesis that ``flux trapping'' of extragalactical cosmic rays occurs in the Galactic confinement volume is advanced. Taking this phenomenon into account, I explicitely discuss how previous objections against an extragalactic origin of hadronic cosmic rays loose their strength. The local energy density of hadronic cosmic rays and other observational facts can be understood in a very natural way assuming an extragalactical origin. A promising scenario seems to be a Galactic origin of electrons and an extragalactic origin of hadrons.

\section[1]{\vspace{\topsep}\vspace{\partopsep}
\refstepcounter{section}
{\par  \noindent\normalsize\bf \thesection
\hspace{1em}#1\vspace{\topsep}\par\noindent}}

\newenvironment{refs}
{\vspace{\topsep}\vspace{\partopsep}
{\par \noindent\normalsize\bf  References
\vspace{-\topsep}\par\noindent}
\setlength{\parindent}{-5mm}
\begin{list}{}{\topsep 0pt \partopsep 0pt \itemsep 0pt \leftmargin 5mm
\parsep 0pt \itemindent -5mm}}
{\end{list}}

\renewcommand\subsection[1]{
\refstepcounter{subsection}
{\par \protect\vspace{\topsep}\vspace{\partopsep}
 \noindent\normalsize\bf \it \thesubsection
\hspace{1em}#1\par \noindent}}

\renewcommand\subsubsection[1]{
\refstepcounter{subsubsection}
{\par \protect \vspace{\topsep}\vspace{\partopsep}
\noindent\normalsize \it \thesubsubsection
\hspace{1em}#1\par \noindent}}

\newfont{\sansb}{cmssbx10}
\newfont{\sans}{cmss10}

\newcommand\tensor[1]{\mbox{\sansb #1}}
\newcommand\vect[1]{\mbox{\bf #1}}
\newcommand\dd{\partial}
\newcommand\sun[0]{\odot}
\newcommand\lline[0]{\vspace{-3pt}\underline{\hspace{1.4cm}\vspace{3pt}}}
\newcommand\G{$\gamma$}

\pagestyle{empty}

\begin{document}
\begin{center}
{\large \bf On an extragalactic origin of the
dominant part of the hadronic cosmic rays\vspace{18pt}\\}
{ R.Plaga$^a$\footnote{email address:
        plaga@hegra1.mppmu.mpg.de}\vspace{12pt}\\}
{\sl
{\it $^a$Max-Planck-Institut f\"ur Physik, F\"ohringer Ring 6,
        D-80805 M\"unchen, Germany  \vspace{12pt}\\}
}
\end{center}
\begin{abstract}
The possibility that the major part of all extrasolar
hadronic cosmic rays with energies above 10 MeV/n
is of extragalactic origin is discussed.
Recent observational
results on the galactocentric cosmic-ray density
gradient and very high $\gamma$-ray emission
do not support expectations
from the simplest models with a Galactic origin of
cosmic rays.
The hypothesis that ``flux trapping'' of extragalactical
cosmic-rays occurs in the Galactic confinement volume
is advanced. Taking this phenomenon into account, all
the usual objections against an extragalactic origin of
{\it hadronic} cosmic rays loose their strength.
The local energy density
of hadronic cosmic rays and other observational facts
can be understood in a very natural way assuming
an extragalactical origin.
A promising scenario seems to be a
Galactic origin of {\it electrons} and an extragalactic
origin of {\it hadrons}.
\end{abstract}
\setlength{\parindent}{1cm}
\section{Introduction}
This report is a short summary and update
of a more detailed article
(Plaga, 1997). In addition, in the third part counterarguments
against an extragalactic origin of cosmic rays are
explicitely answered.
The possibility of an extragalactic origin
of the dominant part of all extrasolar {\it hadronic} cosmic rays
has been considered since the early days
of cosmic-ray research (Baade and Zwicky, 1934).
In the modern era it was discussed by Burbidge, Hoyle and
Brecher (see e.g. Brecher and Burbidge, 1972; Burbidge, 1974).
It has long been clear that the electron component
of cosmic-rays is of Galactic origin, and recently there
has been new impressive evidence for a supernova
origin of this component from TeV astrophysics (Tanimori et al,1997;
T.Kifune, these proceedings).
\\
Since about 30 years, using arguments which I will
discuss below, the standard view about the origin of
extrasolar cosmic rays has been that they must be produced
in our Galaxy. In this case the only objects which seem
to be capable to sustain the observed cosmic-ray energy
density in the Galaxy against losses to intergalactic space are
supernova remnants (Berezinskii et al.,1990).
This idea is eminently plausible because shock-wave
acceleration is expected to operate in these objects
(Berezhko and V\"olk, 1997; H.V\"olk, these proceedings).
There are two observational facts, however, which seem
not to be in complete agreement with the most
simple quantitative models of a Galactic origin of the main part
{\it hadronic} cosmic rays:
\\
1. A classical problem in cosmic-ray physics and
$\gamma$-ray astrophysics is to infer
cosmic-ray density as a function
of the distance from the Galactic center.
\begin{figure}[hbt]
\centering
\epsfig{file=rad_gradc.eps,width=9cm,height=5cm,clip=,angle=0}
\caption{ \label{rad_grad} The figure
(directly taken from (Erlykin et al.,1997))
shows the $\gamma$-ray emissivity
(proportional to cosmic-ray intensity) versus Galactocentric
radius inferred from EGRET data. }
\end{figure}
This is done by measuring the $\gamma$-ray intensity
due to cosmic-ray - interstellar medium interactions.
Taking into account the known density of the interstellar
medium, the cosmic-ray density can be inferred.
Fig.1 shows the resulting density from $\gamma$-ray
data with $\gamma$-ray energies above 2 GeV from the publication
of Erlykin et al. (1996) based on EGRET data.
This result (in basic agreement
with other independent analyses) seems to indicate
that beyond about 8 kpc there is no clear
gradient, i.e. the cosmic-ray density seems to
remain constant, or at least does not
fall by more than about 30 $\%$ between 8 and 18 kpc.
Because supernova remnants and all other
proposed Galactic accelerators are strongly concentrated towards
the Galactic center, one expects in simple diffusion models
of Galactic propagation a fall in comic-ray intensity
by more than a factor of 10
in cosmic-ray density between 8 and 18 kpc (Case
and Bhattacharya, 1996).
While it is certainly possible to devise more
complicated models with an extended halo of
cosmic-rays and transport with winds rather than
diffusion (Erlykin et al., 1997) which explain this
strong disagreement, it should be noted
that {\it a constant density of cosmic-rays at
different distances from the Galactic center (as
observed), has always been
considered as the signature for an extragalactic
origin of cosmic rays.}
The observed small gradient at distances smaller
than 8 kpc can be  naturally interpreted as due to electrons, which are
of Galactic origin.
\\
2. Another recent clue from TeV astrophysics
have been strict upper limits on $\gamma$-ray
emission from certain supernova remnants
(He\ss \, 1997;Lessard et al.,1997).
For two special cases (SNR G78.2+2.1 and IC443) these
limits lie at the lower end of the the uncertainty range
for $\gamma$-radiation of hadronic origin, made
under the assumption of a Galactic
supernova origin of cosmic rays.
Though clearly these results do not signal a crisis
for the Galactic scenario for cosmic-ray origin, they
underline the fact that no {\it direct} evidence
of any sort has been found for it up to now.
\\
The question I ask is {\it not} ``do Galactic supernova remnants
accelerate also ions in addition to electrons?''.
It seems to me very likely that they do that. The question
is rather: ``Do they accelerate them in the {\it required amount}
(i.e. about a factor of 100 times more efficient than the
electrons)
to explain the local cosmic-ray energy density?''

\section{Magnetic flux trapping}
\vspace{-0.9cm}
\subsection{The physical idea}
The new idea of this contribution is ``magnetic-flux trapping'',
a mechanism that might lead to {\it enhancement}
of the intergalactic
cosmic-ray density in the Galactic confinement volume
by a factor $e$.
If cosmic rays escape from an
extragalactic production  site with a high magnetic field
$B_{\mathrm{er}}$
into intergalactic space with a low magnetic field
${B_{\mathrm{IGM}}}$
{\it conserving
the adiabatic invariant},
they have small pitch angles below
a maximal angle
$\theta_{\mathrm{max}}$ = arcsin(
$\sqrt{B_{\mathrm{IGM}}/B_{\mathrm{er}}}$).
Under these conditions the particles can freely
\begin{figure}[hbt]
\centering
\epsfig{file=Rainer2c.eps,width=9cm,height=6cm,clip=,angle=0}
\caption{ \label{mag_struc}Schematic sketch of the hypothetical general
topology of the Galactic and intergalactic magnetic field
assumed for the present scenario. The field is
generally closed,
but some Parker loops connect to the intergalactic magnetic
field. Cosmic rays enter through the connected loops and
escape through all loops.}
\end{figure}
enter the Galactic confinement
volume via the open field lines, if the
Galactic field has a general topology as depicted in figure
\ref{mag_struc}.
\\
It is generally agreed that the adiabatic invariant
is not conserved inside the Galaxy due to various
scattering mechanisms. All Galactic field lines
are expected to be filled with particles of all
pitch angles.
If the only cosmic-ray loss path is via
open field lines connected to intergalactic field
lines, the cosmic ray density inside the Galaxy
is a factor
\\
(1) $b_{\mathrm{conc,equ}}=2B_{\mathrm{Gal}}/B_{\mathrm{IGM}}$
\\
enhanced over the intergalactic value.
Here $B_{Gal}$ is the Galactic field strength.
{\it This could lead to concentration factors on the order
of 10$^5$ with plausible values for the intergalactic and Galactic
magnetic field.} This enhancement mechanism was first
dicussed in a related context by Sciama (1962).
The main speculative parts of the hypothesis are that:
\\
1. the incoming intergalactic cosmic rays
have very small pitch angles so that they can freely
enter the Galactic confinement volume.
This will be the case if their place of origin lies in
regions with magnetic fields higher than about a $\mu$G.
\\
2. The adiabatic invariant is strictly conserved during
intergalactic propagation. Presently it is
not possible to say whether this assumption is true
or not, due to our very poor knowledge of intergalactic
fields.
\subsection{ Galactic propagation in the extragalactic scenario}
If the concentration factor $b_{\mathrm{conc,equ}}$
is very large, the resulting cosmic-ray density can become
too large to be confined in the Galactic magnetic field.
Cosmic rays then mainly escape through
additionally formed Parker loops
which are unconnected to the intergalactic magnetic
field. As a limiting case one expects an equilibrium situation
in which standard Galactic cosmic-ray propagation
remains approximately valid. {\it In this case the only difference to
the standard picture is that hadronic
cosmic rays are supplied from
the outside instead from Galactic sources.}
\\
One can then show that the effective concentration
factor $e$ is given as:
\\
(2) $e = {{d c} \over { D_{\mathrm{G}}}} \simeq 3 \cdot 10^4 $
\\
here $ D_{\mathrm{G}}$ is the diffusion coefficient
of Galactic propagation, $d$ is the linear size of the
confinement volume and $c$ is the speed of light.
\subsection{The origin of extragalactic cosmic rays}
It is a completely open question presently
if the intergalactic hadronic cosmic-ray density
was mainly produced in normal galaxies or
active objects. If the latter dominate, radio galaxies
like Cen A seem to be the most natural accelerators
for the locally observed hadronic cosmic rays
in the present scenario. In the local supergalaxy
it seems quite possible that the intergalactic
medium at the lobes is chemically processed.
{\it But also a supernova-remnant origin
in normal or ``bright phase'' galaxies is an attractive possibility!}
\section{The counterarguments against an extragalactic
origin of hadronic cosmic rays}
The idea of an extragalactic origin has long been unpopular
because of strong arguments against it.
I will now briefly discuss why all of these arguments loose
their strength if ``flux trapping'' is assumed to operate.
\subsection{\it The expected energy density of
intergalactic cosmic rays is too small}
A generally
accepted estimate for the density of intergalactic
hadronic cosmic rays $\rho_{eg}$
expected from normal galaxies
and active objects is about 10$^{-4}$ of the local value $\rho_{loc}$
(Ginzburg, 1993).
Remarkably one gets as a natural and
``untuned'' consequence of our scenario:
$\rho_{\mathrm{loc}}$ $\simeq$ $\rho_{\mathrm{eg}}$ $\cdot$ $e$
(see eq.(2)).
The predicted enhancement factor $e$
has the right order of magnitude to explain the
local energy density of cosmic rays, {\it under the assumption
of an extragalactical cosmic-ray energy density which is
considered likely by most workers in the field}.
\begin{figure}[hbt]
\centering
\epsfig{file=originfigure3.eps,width=11cm,height=8cm,clip=,angle=0}
         \caption{\label{originfigure3.eps}
          An extragalactical scenario for the origin
          of the observed cosmic-ray spectrum near earth. Plotted
           is the differential flux of hadronic cosmic rays
           multiplied by E$^2$ as a function of the cosmic-ray energy
           per nucleus E . The thin line is a schematic representation
          of experimental results. They are explained by an
          extragalactical spectrum outside the Galaxy (thick line) which
           is enhanced in the Galaxy by
          a factor $e$ (symbolized by the arrows). This factor
           varies $\sim$ E$^{-0.5}$. Only at energies above the
           ``ankle'' the extragalactical spectrum is equal to the
           observed spectrum.}
\end{figure}
More detailed
figure \ref{originfigure3.eps} shows a speculative explanation of the
observed cosmic-ray spectrum under the assumption
of an extragalactic origin.
Here it was taken into account that the enhancement factor $e$
is expected to be energy dependent in the standard theory
of cosmic-ray propagation. While the ``knee'' remains enigmatic
in all scenarios, the position of the ``ankle'' follows as a natural
consequence of the extragalactic scenario.
\subsection{\it There is no $\gamma$ radiation from the SMC}
Sreekumar et al. (1993)
have argued that their
non-detection of $\gamma$-radiation above 100 MeV
from the Small Magellanic cloud (SMC) rules out an extragalactic
origin of cosmic-rays.
Their argument is based on the assumption
that the cosmic-ray density in the SMC is equal to the
local Galactic one in extragalactic scenarios.
This assumption does no longer hold in the present special
extragalactic scenario: because of the small
size and dynamically disintegrating state of the SMC,
the ``concentration factor'' for this galaxy is expected to be smaller
than the one for our Galaxy. In fact this
expected smaller concentration
factor is effectively also the main explanation for the low
$\gamma$-ray luminosity in the standard ``local''
explanation for cosmic-ray origin.
\subsection{\it The chemical and isotopical composition
of the hadronic cosmic radiation is very similar to
the one of the solar system, this is in favor
of a local Galactic origin}
The measured abundance pattern is thought to be
determined by general nucleosynthetic principles
which probably operate in all galaxies.
It is possible (though not necessary)
that chemically processed plasma is accelerated in
extragalactic sources.
Moreover in a Galactic scenario
cosmic rays are ``young'' (about 10$^7$ years) whereas
the solar system is about 5 billion years old. Because of this, the
very good consistency of cosmic-ray and solar-system
abundances is {\it not} a priori expected in a Galactic scenario
(Fields et al.,1993).
\subsection{\it Cosmic-ray clocks measure a
small age of cosmic rays, thus the heavy ions
cannot be of extragalactic origin}
Cosmic-ray clocks like $^{10}$Be
indicate an ``age'' of cosmic rays of a few tens of million
years.
This is much less
than the expected time since acceleration
in an extragalactic scenario, which is on the order of
the age of the universe t$_{\mathrm{U}}$ $\simeq$ 1.5 $\cdot$
10$^{10}$ years. This might be interpreted as evidence
against an extragalactic origin.
What cosmic-ray clocks
measure, however, is the time since they propagate in a medium
dense enough to lead to
nonnegligible spallation processing (the radioactive $^{10}$Be
is a spallation product
from nuclear reactions during propagation
and not a remnant from the acceleration site).
If extragalactic cosmic rays were accelerated in regions with
low matter density (like giant radio lobes) or left the
acceleration site on a very small time scale
(like in an early galaxy with a strong galactic wind)
and then propagated in the intergalactic
medium which has a very low ambient density, the measured
``age'' merely measures the time since entering
the Galaxy, which is on the order of
the confinement time t$_{\mathrm{conf}}$, like
in the Galactic scenario of cosmic-ray origin.
\subsection{It's a priori unlikely that the electrons
and hadrons in the cosmic radiation have a completely
different origin}
There could be a plausible
physical mechanism for this ``breaking of the
tie'': as opposed to hadrons,
electrons cannot propagate over cosmological distances
due to inverse Compton scattering on the 3 K$^o$ background
at the energies of interest here.
It is also remarkable that observations of electrons
in several supernova remnants seem to indicate a ``break off'' in
energy spectrum around 10 TeV (Allen, 1997),
in good agreement with an expected maximum
energy of about 100 TeV for older SNRs (both for electrons
and hadrons). There is no evidence
for any sharp feature in hadronic cosmic rays up to much
higher energies (the ``knee'' at 2 PeV).
\vspace{-0.1cm}
\section{Conclusion}
The assumptions made for the basic hypothesis
of ``flux trapping'' are speculative and
perhaps controversial.
A better understanding of very complex magnetohydrodynamic
processes in intergalactic space
is needed  to make
a firm decision whether they are realistic or not.
From a purely phenomenological point of view the
following point of view seems interesting:
\\
{\it Galactic SNRs produce the observed
electron cosmic-ray flux. The required
acceleration efficiency is modest
and the high-energy cutoff lies in the region
of 10 TeV, in good agreement with theoretical
expectation
(see e.g. Mastichiades and de Jager (1996)).
Protons and nuclei are perhaps accelerated with a
roughly similar
efficiency (i.e. much less than with a 100 times higher
efficiency ) and high-energy
cutoff, and therefore produce a
local hadronic cosmic-ray intensity comparable
to the electron intensity (on the order of 1 $\%$ of the total
intensity below the cutoff). The main part of hadronic cosmic rays
is due to intergalactic cosmic radiation
which has
an enhanced density in the Galactic confinement
volume.}
\\
I thank I.Holl, D.Petry, S.Pezzoni and H.V\"olk for helpful
discussions and preparation of figures.
\vspace{-1.0cm}
\begin{refs}
\item Allen,G.E.,et al., Proc. 25th ICRC (Durban),4,449 (1997).
\item Baade,W., Zwicky,F., Proc. Nat. Acad. Sci., 20,259 (1934).
\item Berezhko,E.G., V\"olk,H.J.,1997, preprint MPI-H-V12-1997,
to appear in Astropart. Phys. .
\item Berezinskii, V.S. et al.,1990, `Astrophysics
of Cosmic Rays', North Holland, Amsterdam.
\item Brecher,K., Burbidge,G.R., Astrophys.J. 174,253 (1972).
\item Burbidge,G., Phil. Trans. R. Soc. A 277,481 (1974).
\item Erlykin,A.D.,Wolfendale,A.W.,Zhang,L. and Zielinska,M., A+A
Suppl.Ser. 120,397 (1996).
\item  Erlykin,A.D.,Smialkowski,A., and Wolfendale,A.W.,
 Proc. 25th ICRC (Durban),3,113 (1997).
\item Fields,B.D., Schramm,D.N.,Truran,J.W.,
Proc. 23th ICRC (Calgary),2,398 (1993).
\item Ginzburg, V.L., Phys. Usp. 36,587 (1993).
\item He\ss \,M., Proc. 25th ICRC (Durban),3,229 (1997).
\item Lessard,R.W. et al., Proc. 25th ICRC (Durban),3,233 (1997).
\item Mastichiadis,A., de Jager,O.C.,1996, submitted to Astron. Astrophys.,
astro-ph 9606014.
\item Plaga, R., ``An extragalactic ``flux trapping'' origin of the dominant
part of hadronic cosmic rays?'', accepted for publication
in Astron. Astrophys., astro-ph/9711094.
\item Sciama,D., Mon.Not.R.Ast.Soc. 123,217 (1962).
\item Sreekumar,P., et al., Phys.Rev.Lett. 70,127(1993).
\item Tanimori,T. et al., IAU telegram 6706 (1997).
\end{refs}
\pagebreak

\end{document}