Massive Binary Stars and Self-Enrichment of Globular Clusters

Abstract: Globular clusters contain many stars with surface abundance patterns indicating contributions from hydrogen burning products, as seen in the anti-correlated elemental abundances of e.g. sodium and oxygen, and magnesium and aluminium. Multiple generations of stars can explain this phenomenon, with the second generation forming from a mixture of pristine gas and ejecta from the first generation. We show that massive binary stars may be a source of much of the material that makes this second generation of stars. Mass transfer in binaries is often non-conservative and the ejected matter moves slowly enough that it can remain inside a globular cluster and remain available for subsequent star formation. Recent studies show that there are more short-period massive binaries than previously thought, hence also more stars that interact and eject nuclear-processed material.

\section{The mass budget and enrichment candidates}

The abundance correlations and helium enrichment observed in globular
cluster stars imply that proton-burning reactions are responsible
\citep[and many contributions to this volume]{2007A&A...470..179P}.
Hot hydrogen burning makes helium, nitrogen and aluminium, while destroying
oxygen, carbon and magnesium, as required in models of self-enrichment
in globular clusters. However, the number of stars in a second, or
further, generation is often similar to or exceeds the number in the
first generation \citep{2009A&A...505..117C}, and the amount of nuclear-processed
material currently in their atmospheres is similar to, or larger than,
that present in the atmospheres of the first stellar generation. It
is not clear how so much nuclear-processed mass can end up in the
second generation of stars. Four main channels have been investigated
to date:

1. \emph{Massive Asymptotic Giant Branch (AGB) stars} are the canonically
accepted prime candidates for self-enrichment \citep{2001ApJ...550L..65V}.
During their thermally-pulsing AGB (TPAGB) phase, hot-bottom burning
effectively cycles the whole stellar envelope through a hot hydrogen
burning shell. A star of mass $4\mathrm{\, M_{\odot}}\lesssim M\lesssim10\mathrm{\, M_{\odot}}$
ejects about $(M-1)\mathrm{\, M_{\odot}}$ of nuclear-processed material,
which is about 10\% of the mass of the whole stellar generation. This
does not take into account binary interaction which reduces the nuclear-processed
TPAGB mass yield \citep{2004MmSAI..75..754I} while allowing for significant
helium enrichment \citep{2012A&A...543A...4V}.

2. \emph{Rapidly rotating massive stars} also eject hydrogen-burned
material if they spin fast enough \citep{2007A&A...464.1029D}. Rotational
mixing transports material from the hot stellar core to the surface
where it is ejected if the star exceeds its critical rotation rate.
This is predicted to happen in some stars \citep{2012arXiv1211.3742D}
although the number of rapidly rotating stars is such that only 3\%
of the mass of all massive stars is ejected in this manner \citep{2009A&A...507L...1D}.

3. \emph{Stellar mergers} in dense cores of globular clusters may
also contribute to the reservoir of nuclear processed material \citep{2009A&A...497..255G}
although this channel probably does not contribute enough mass to
make the second generation of stars \citep{2010MNRAS.407..277S}.

4. \emph{Massive binary stars} are another source of nuclear processed
material, as we explore in the following.

\section{Massive binary stars}

While there is some doubt about whether most stars are in multiple
stellar systems, we can be sure that most stars with masses exceeding
about $2\mathrm{\, M_{\odot}}$ live with a companion star \citep{2007A&A...474...77K,2010ApJS..190....1R,2012ApJS..203...30F}.
Just as importantly, the latest estimate of the O-type binary-period
distribution in young, open clusters shows that more of them are close\emph{,
}i.e. liable to interact by mass transfer, than previously thought
\citep{2012Sci...337..444S}. Only about $29\%$ of O-type stars evolve
as single stars: the rest either have their envelope stripped ($33\%$),
merge ($24\%$) or accrete mass ($14\%$).

Because stars expand as they age, in a close binary the initially
more massive (primary) star overflows its Roche lobe first, transferring
mass onto the (initially less massive) secondary (Fig.~\ref{fig:schematic-RLOF}).
Material flows through the first Lagrange point onto the companion,
carrying with it both the chemical signature of the primary star and
angular momentum. The transferred mass settles onto the surface of
the secondary, spinning it up, but -- at least initially -- not greatly
altering its chemical abundance because material near the surface
of the primary is never hot enough for nuclear reactions to be efficient.

\begin{figure*}
\begin{centering}
\includegraphics[scale=0.5]{Izzard_Fig1.eps}
\par\end{centering}

\caption{\label{fig:schematic-RLOF}Schematic view of Roche-lobe overflow in
a massive binary system. \textbf{(a)} At the start of Roche-lobe overflow,
the primary star (left) overflows its Roche lobe and transfers material
to the secondary (right). \textbf{(b)} By the end of Roche-lobe overflow,
the secondary has accreted unburned material while hydrogen-burned
material from deep inside the primary has been ejected from the binary
system and may mix with other sources of interstellar gas from which
a subsequent generation of stars may form.}

\end{figure*}
Accretion and spin up continues until the mass of the secondary increases
by about $10\%$, at which point it rotates so fast that material
at its equator is unbound \citep{1981A&A...102...17P}. Any further
mass transferred by Roche-lobe overflow is ejected from the binary
system at a velocity which is low compared to the proto-globular cluster
ejection speed. This material may be retained in the cluster for further
star formation. As the primary continues to transfer mass, it loses
its unburned envelope and material originally deep inside the star,
which has undergone nuclear burning, is exposed at the stellar surface.
First, layers burned by the CN cycle, then CNO, and later NeNa and
MgAl cycles, are transferred through the Lagrange point and ejected
from the binary system. Detailed binary evolution models suggest that
about three quarters of the transferred mass is ejected from a close
binary system, i.e. an accretion efficiency less than about $0.25$
\citep{2009A&A...507L...1D}, the binary-star physics remains highly
uncertain and its study continues \citep[e.g.][]{2011A&A...528A..16V,2012arXiv1211.3742D}.

While the binary-star scenario has not yet been explored in detail,
it is observed in nature. The binary star RY Scuti is ejecting material
rich in helium and nitrogen, and poor in oxygen and carbon, at a velocity
of about $50\,\mathrm{km}\,\mathrm{s}^{-1}$ \citep*{2001AJ....122.2700S}
i.e. more slowly than a stellar wind or the escape speed of a young
globular cluster. Further examples of binary mass transfer include
the Algol systems \citep{2011A&A...528A..16V}, X-ray binaries \citep{1977ApJ...212..533F}
and Wolf-Rayet binaries \citep{2005A&A...435.1013P} which must also
be products of non-conservative mass transfer.

It is clear that a copious amount of material is ejected from interacting
binary stars, much of which has been processed by nuclear burning.
We estimate that as much as $13\%$ of the mass of a generation of
stars can be ejected in massive binaries, an amount similar to that
ejected from rapidly rotating massive stars and AGB stars combined
\citep{2009A&A...507L...1D}.

\section{Frascati-fuelled Perspective}

It is unlikely that anyone would bet more than a bottle of Frascati's
finest white wine on any single one of the proposed scenarios for
globular cluster self-pollution being the \emph{only} source of mass
for a second generation of stars. Massive AGB stars are generally
considered the best candidate because they can process material through
hot hydrogen-burning prior to its ejection in a slow wind, although
if third dredge up happens in these stars they may not be responsible
(although see \citealp{2008ApJ...684.1159Y}). The mass range which
contributes to clusters is unclear also, are super-AGB stars candidates
\citep{2012MNRAS.423.1521D}? Rapidly rotating massive stars certainly
exist, but their total ejected mass is not enough even assuming --
realistically? -- that they are all rapid rotators \citep{2009A&A...507L...1D}.
Binary stars may eject enough mass to satisfy the requirements of
a second stellar generation, but quite how conservative is binary
mass loss is not clear even after many decades of study \citep[e.g.][and references therein]{2007A&A...467.1181D}.
The competition between star formation and cluster gas ejection is
also relevant because massive stars evolve quickly relative to AGB
stars. It may be that massive-star ejecta escapes from the globular
cluster before forming any new stars (see e.g. Charbonnel et al. and
other contributions to this volume).

Uncertainties in stellar physics, e.g. mass-loss rates, mixing rates
and nuclear reaction rates, affect stellar yield predictions considerably
(e.g. \citealp{2005A&A...431..279V,2007A&A...466..641I,2007MNRAS.375.1280S,2009A&A...497..243D,2013arXiv1301.2487M};
and many others). The magnesium-aluminium negative correlation is
particularly difficult to reproduce because it requires proton capture
at temperatures which massive stars are unable to reach, while such
burning is possible in massive AGB stars \citep{2011MNRAS.415.3865V}.
Still, the massive-binary channel remains relatively unexplored and
a serious contributor to the mass that makes the second generation
of stars in globular clusters.
\begin{acknowledgements}
RGI thanks the conference organisers, the Alexander von Humboldt Foundation
for supporting his work and Richard Stancliffe for a critical reading
of the manuscript.\vspace{-3mm}
\end{acknowledgements}
\bibliographystyle{aa}

Solar and Stellar Astrophysics (astro-ph.SR)


Dual Axisymmetry in Proto-Planetary Nebula Reflection Nebulosities: Results from an HST Snapshot Survey of PPN Candidates

Abstract: We summarize results of our {\it HST} imaging survey of proto-planetary nebula (PPN) candidates, in which we discovered two types of axisymmetric reflection nebulosities. The Star-Obvious Low-level-Elongated (SOLE) nebulae show a bright central star embedded in a smooth, faint extended nebulosity, whereas the DUst-Prominent Longitudinally-EXtended (DUPLEX) nebulae have remarkable bipolar structure with a completely or partially obscured central star. The intrinsic axisymmetry of the PPN reflection nebulosities demonstrates that the axisymmetry often found in planetary nebulae predates the PPN phase. We suggest that the major cause for the apparent dual morphology is the optical depth difference in the circumstellar dust shell rather than the inclination angle effect.

\section{Introduction}
Axisymmetry often seen in planetary nebulae (PNe) must arise
before photoionization starts illuminating the fascinating
structure of the nebulae.
High resolution optical imaging of PPN reflection nebulosities
can serve as an indirect probe for the innermost structure of
the PPN dust shell, which is formed during the superwind mass
loss phase at the end of the asymptotic giant branch (AGB)
evolution.
This conference contribution summarizes the results from
our {\it HST} survey,
which covered the largest number of PPN candidates to date
including the ones associated with bright central stars
(Ueta, Meixner, \& Bobrowsky 2000).
Our goal was to investigate if there exists any coherent
trend that will bridge gaps in the circumstellar
morphologies between the AGB and PN phases.

\section{HST Snapshot Survey of PPN Candidates}
Our HST snapshot survey of PPN candidates found that 78\%
(21 of 27) of the reflection nebulosities were resolved and
all of the resolved nebulae were elongated (ellipticity $=0.44$).
This ubiquitous axisymmetry suggests that PPNe are intrinsically
axisymmetric.
Hence, given the spherical nature of the AGB wind shell,
the PN axisymmetry is likely to originate during the superwind
phase.
Moreover, there are clearly two types of reflection nebulosities
which we classified as
{\it Star-Obvious Low-level-Elongated} (SOLE) nebulae,
showing smooth, low surface brightness
elongations with extremely bright central stars,
and
{\it DUst-Prominent Longitudinally-EXtended} (DUPLEX) nebulae,
having bipolar lobes straddling dust lanes with
totally or partially obscured central stars.

\begin{figure}[h]
\plotone{fig1.ps}
\caption{SOLE (left four frames) and DUPLEX (right four frames)
types of PPN reflection nebulae.
IRAS ID and filters are shown in each frame.
N (E) is up (left) with tickmarks showing relative offsets
in arcsec.
``+ decon'' indicates a deconvolved image.}
\end{figure}

\section{SOLE vs. DUPLEX: Physically Distinct Nebulosities}

We attribute the {\it major} source for the dual morphology
to the optical depth in the superwind shell, which varies
depending on the degree of equatorial density enhancement.
The following evidence suggests that the inclination
angle effect alone may not be good enough to interpret what we
see in the data.

\subsection{Mid-Infrared Morphology}
A recent mid-infrared (mid-IR) survey of PPN candidates
(Meixner et al. 1999)
has revealed a corresponding dual morphology in the PPN
dust emission regions.
SOLE type optical nebulae corresponds to {\it toroidal} type
mid-IR dust emission nebulae, in which we see two dust emission
peaks that are interpreted as a limb-brightened dust torus.
On the other hand, DUPLEX type nebulae
is related to {\it core/elliptical} type dust emission nebulae,
in which we see a very compact, unresolved core with a broad
plateau (Fig.2).
Characteristics of both optical and mid-IR images
suggest that SOLE-Toroidal type nebulae are of
optically thin dust shells and
that DUPLEX-Core/Elliptical type nebulae are of
optically thick dust shells.
We also schematically describe how the optical depth
in the superwind influences the shape of the
two types of reflection nebulosities in Fig.2.

\begin{figure}[h]
\plottwo{fig2a.ps}{fig2b.eps}
\caption{Optical/mid-IR overlay images (left) and
a schematic (right) of two PPN types.
Both optical and mid-IR PPN morphologies appear to
depend on the optical depth of the superwind shell.}
\end{figure}

More importantly, mid-IR images show that there are SOLE
nebulae that are oriented rather edge-on (e.g. IRAS 07134+1005
in Fig.2, IRAS 17436+5003 in Fig.4), and therefore,
elliptical reflection nebulae (SOLE) are not necessarily
bipolar nebulae (DUPLEX) seen pole-on.

\subsection{Spectral Energy Distributions and Two-Color Diagrams}
SOLE and DUPLEX nebulae are also distinct in the shapes of
spectral energy distribution (SED; Fig.3, left).
Optically thin SOLE nebulae let the stellar
emission pass while converting some to thermal dust emission,
yielding comparable stellar and dust peaks.
Optically thick DUPLEX nebulae
absorb all stellar photons except for some scattered
ones, yielding a large dust emission peak with
an optical plateau.

\begin{figure}[b]
\plotone{fig3.eps}
\caption{The optical depth difference in SOLE and DUPLEX
nebulae manifests itself as the SED shapes (left) and
color diagram (right).}
\end{figure}

The duality is also seen in both an IRAS/near-IR
and a near-IR color diagrams,
confirming the optical thickness interpretation.
IRAS/near-IR diagram (Fig.3, right) shows
three clusters of PPNe according to the visibility
of the central stars (total, partial, and none obscuration).
Near-IR diagram (not shown) shows
a linear distribution of PPNe according to the degree
of reddening (the redder, the more dust).

\subsection{Two-Dimensional Radiation Transfer Calculations}
Preliminary results from full 2-D radiation transfer
simulations of PPN dust shells generally agree
with optical/mid-IR data.
The optically thin superwind shell model yielded a resolved
dust peak in the mid-IR and a diffuse reflection nebula without
a dust lane in the optical,
while the optically thick superwind shell model
yielded a compact dust emission core with a broad emission
plateau in the mid-IR and a bipolar nebula divided by a dust lane
in the optical (Meixner, Ueta, \& Bobrowsky 2000;
also see the contribution by Meixner in this issue).

\section{Discussions}
The distinctness between SOLE and DUPLEX nebulae seems to
originate from the varying optical depths in the superwind shells,
and it is evidenced by the correlation between optical and mid-IR
morphologies, characteristic SED shapes,
color diagrams,
and 2-D radiation transfer calculations.
The inclination angle effect alone may not be good enough to
interpret all SOLE nebulae
being pole-on bipolar nebulae because
we have found as many SOLE nebulae as DUPLEX nebulae,
there are some SOLE PPNe that are rather edge-on,
and SOLE nebulae do not show the imbalance of surface brightness,
which is a signature of inclined orientation in DUPLEX nebulae,
although the inclination angle effect still remains as a source
of confusion.

Neither age nor chemical composition seems to be related to the
morphological bifurcation, and the origin of equatorial density
enhancement in the superwind remains unknown.
However, there is a suggestion that DUPLEX PPNe may have
evolved from higher mass AGB progenitors because of the Galactic
distribution of PPNe:
DUPLEX nebulae, having a mean height of $220$pc with a range
of $|z|<520$pc, are more confined to the Galactic plane
than SOLE nebulae, which have a mean height of
$470$pc with a range of $|z|<2100$pc.


Nuclei of early-type dwarf galaxies: are they progenitors of UCDs?

Abstract: To address the question of whether the so-called ultra compact dwarf galaxies (UCDs) are the remnant nuclei of destroyed early-type dwarf galaxies (dEs), we analyze the stellar population parameters of the nuclei of 34 Virgo dEs, as well as ten Virgo UCDs, including one that we discovered and which we report on here. Based on absorption line strength (Lick index) measurements, we find that nuclei of Virgo dEs have younger stellar population ages than UCDs, with averages of 5 Gyr and >10 Gyr, respectively. In addition to this, the metallicity also differs: dE nuclei are on average more metal-rich than UCDs. On the other hand, comparing the stellar population parameters at the same local galaxy density, with UCDs being located in the high density cluster regions, we do not find any difference in the stellar populations of dE nuclei and UCDs. In those regions, the dE nuclei are as old and as metal poor as UCDs. This evidence suggests that the Virgo UCDs may have formed through the stripping of dE nuclei.

\section{Introduction}

Since the discovery of ultra-compact dwarf galaxies (UCDs; \citealt{Hilker99};
\citealt{Phillipps01}), it is still a complicated puzzle in extragalactic
astronomy how such compact and luminous objects may have
formed. They are brighter and larger than globular clusters
(GCs) \citep{Mieske02} and much smaller than early-type dwarf
galaxies (dEs) in both size and luminosity. A number of studies
targeting various UCD samples in different galaxy clusters also
revealed the diverse nature of UCDs: Fornax UCDs are slightly redder
on average than Virgo UCDs
\citep{Evstigneeva08,Mieske08aa,Mieske06}. On the other hand, it is
still a matter of debate whether or not the UCDs contain dark matter
\citep{Drinkwater03,  Hasegan05, Hilker07}. This makes them very
special objects to study in extragalactic astronomy, suggesting that
the presence of dark matter or not can be directly related to whether
UCDs have a galactic origin or not.

Overall it has been already noted that Virgo UCDs contain fairly old
(age: $>$ 8-10 Gyr) and metal poor ($< -$0.5 dex) stellar populations
\citep[hereafter E07]{Evstigneeva07}. Therefore, it is also proposed
that they could be very luminous intra-cluster GCs
\citep{Mieske02}. Another popular formation
scenario is the threshing of nucleated dEs
\citealt{Bassino94}. In this picture, UCDs are the remnants of galaxies that have been
significantly stripped in the cluster environment. Numerical
simulations \citep{Bekki03,Goerdt08} have generally confirmed that the remnant
nuclei resemble UCDs in their structural parameters.

Stellar population studies of dEs  provide evidence that the
nuclei have intermediate ages and moderately metal-enriched
stellar populations \citep{Koleva09, Chilingarian09}. In addition to this,
since UCDs show slightly super solar [$\alpha$/Fe] abundances,
\citet{Evstigneeva07} argued that the stellar population properties
rather support the view that UCDs are luminous globular
clusters than being nuclei of dEs.

In this letter, we present a stellar population analysis based on
absorption-line strengths (Lick indices, \citealt{Burstein84};
\citealt{Worthey94a}; \citealt{Trager98}) of a fairly large sample
of 34 nucleated dEs and 10 UCDs in the Virgo cluster. So far, studies comparing
stellar population parameters derived from spectra used rather low
numbers of objects. Moreover, the extraction of nuclear spectra has been made without subtracting
the underlying galactic light, which can still contribute significantly at the photometric
center of the dEs. We therefore apply a simple method to subtract most of
this light (see Section \ref{reduc}), thus expecting that our
measurements are representative for the stellar population properties
of the nuclei themselves.
Finally, we present the distributions of the stellar population parameters of
 dE nuclei and UCDs with respect to local galaxy density and to their
 luminosity, and we try to constrain possible formation scenarios of Virgo UCDs.

\section{The sample, observations  and data reduction} \label{reduc}
\begin{figure}
 \includegraphics[width=8cm]{nuc_hist}
 \caption{\emph{Top:} Number distribution of dE nuclei and UCDs in our
   sample. \emph{Bottom:} Our selection criteria for dE nuclei,
   limiting the nucleus magnitude $m_{r, {\rm nucleus}}$ to values
   brighter than 21 mag, and the ``nucleus strength'', i.e.\ the value of $m_{r, {\rm
       nucleus}}-\mu_{r, {\rm eff, galaxy}}$ to less than -1. Note
   that the nucleus sample is not complete within this parameter
   region, i.e.\ not all Virgo dE nuclei with these parameters have
   been observed.}
 \label{his}
\end{figure}

\subsection{Sample selection and a new Virgo UCD}
\label{scucd}

Our dE sample comprises 34 nucleated dEs in the Virgo cluster
\cite[Virgo cluster catalog, VCC,][]{Binggeli85, Binggeli93},
selected to have a relatively high ``nucleus strength''
\cite[details of the sample see,][]{Paudel10}, which we
define as the difference between the nucleus magnitude
  and the host galaxy
effective surface brightness, $s_{r, \rm nucleus} = m_{r, {\rm
       nucleus}}-\mu_{r, {\rm eff, galaxy}}$, measured in SDSS $r$
(see below). Thereby, $\mu_{r, {\rm eff, galaxy}}$ is a measure for
the brightness of a unit area of the galaxy, determining the
``contrast'' between galaxy and nucleus (also see \citealt{Lisker07},
their Fig. 1).
 We
select nuclei with $s_{r, \rm nucleus}<-1$ and $m_{r, {\rm
    nucleus}}<21$ mag (see Fig.~\ref{his}).

Our UCD sample selection (see Table 1), is based on
\citet{Evstigneeva05} and \citet{Jones06}; our numbering follows the latter. Three of
the nine Virgo UCDs of Jones et al.\ were not included in the Lick
index study of Evstigneeva et al.\ (VUCD2, 8, and 9), so they were
selected by us as targets. Three further UCDs were selected, since they fell in the same
field-of-view as dE targets of our study. Due to the multi-slit
observations, they could be easily included.

We also targeted a new Virgo UCD candidate, which we now indeed
confirm as Virgo cluster member; it is named VUCD10 in
Table 1. It was identified through a simple multiparameter selection
procedure. From SDSS DR5 pipeline photometry, we obtained $ugriz$
magnitudes and colors for all nine Virgo UCDs in
\citet{Jones06}. When excluding VUCD7, which is clearly
brighter than the others and appears to
be an extended object in the SDSS images (also see \citealt{Jones06}),
the {\it r}-band magnitudes (SDSS ``modelMag'' values) lie within 18.0
to 19.1 mag. Their Petrosian radii in $r$, again excluding
VUCD7, are below 2.2 arcsec. Their {\it u-r} colors, when excluding the
much redder VUCD3, cover the range 1.8 to 2.4 mag (which includes
VUCD7). Their {\it i-z} colors, again excluding VUCD3, lie between
0.1 and 0.25 mag (which again
includes VUCD7). The right ascension and declination of all objects
except VUCD3 and VUCD7 ranges from 187.5$^\circ$ to 188.1$^\circ$ and 11.9$^\circ$ to
12.7$^\circ$, respectively. When querying the SDSS database for all objects
fulfilling the above criteria of magnitude, radius, color, and
position, 20 objects were identified that the SDSS classified as
stars, among them VUCD1, 2, and 5. The same query, but for objects
classified as galaxies, yielded only five objects: VUCD4, 6, 8, 9, and
the new VUCD10, which we therefore included in our target sample.

With its radial velocity of 2425 km/s that we now measured from its
spectrum, it is consistent with being a Virgo cluster member: in
velocity space, Virgo member galaxies in the central cluster region
reach velocities of 2600 km/s
(\citealt{Binggeli87,Binggeli93}).
We therefore consider VUCD10
a new Virgo cluster UCD, and include it in the following analysis.

\subsection{Photometry}

To obtain nucleus and UCD magnitudes, we use SDSS DR5 $r$-band images to
which we applied our own sky subtraction procedure
\citep[see][]{Lisker07}. We also correct them for Galactic extinction,
following \citet{Schlegel98}, and use the flux calibration provided
directly by the SDSS. A Virgo distance modulus of $m-M=31.09$ mag
\citep{Mei07, Blakeslee09}, corresponding to $d=16.5$ Mpc and an SDSS pixel scale of
32 pc (80 pc/"), is adopted here and in the further analysis.

Nucleus magnitudes are
derived as follows. A S\'ersic fit to the radial
profile of the galaxy is done, measured with elliptical annuli and using only
the radial interval from 2" to 1/3 of the half-light radius, or
extending it if the interval subtends less than 2.5" (200 pc).
From this fit, a two-dimensional elliptical model image, taking
  into account the median SDSS PSF of 1.4" FWHM, is
created and subtracted from the original image, leaving only the
nucleus in the center. The nucleus magnitude is then measured by
circular aperture photometry with $r=2"$. We estimate the magnitude error to be 0.2
mag, which is consistent with the RMS scatter of a comparison to the {\it Hubble Space
  Telescope (HST)} ACS Virgo
cluster survey \citep{Cote06} for the 10 objects in
common.\footnote{Nucleus $r$ magnitudes were converted into $g$
    by adding the $g-r$ color value of the nucleated dE's center
    ($r\le2"$), and were then compared to ACS $g$ magnitudes, showing
    no systematic offset.}

The same aperture photometry
is done to obtain UCD magnitudes. To be comparable to the nucleus
measurements, this aperture is also applied to
VUCD7, even though it is known to be
extended, as mentioned previously. For the UCD magnitudes we estimate
an error of 0.1 mag.

\subsection{Spectroscopy}

The spectroscopic observations were carried out at ESO Very Large Telescope (VLT)
with FORS2. The 1" slit and V300 grism provide an
instrumental resolution $\sim$11 \AA{} FWHM.  Details of the
observational layout and data reduction are described in
\citet[hereafter P10]{Paudel10}. Our data was obtained in two
observing runs, using the same instrumental setup.
The first set of dEs (26 objects, see P10) was observed in the semester 2007A,  and
the second set (8 dEs) in 2010A.
In total our sample covers the full range of local projected
galaxy density that is populated by nucleated dEs in Virgo, from less
than 10 to more than 100 galaxies per square degree. The
UCDs were observed in 2007A together with the first set of dEs, using
the same instrumental configuration. We provide the basic
properties such as position and radial velocity in Table \ref{ucds}
and the detailed UCD sample selection criteria in Section \ref{scucd}.

 While the nucleus typically contributes the majority of light
at the photometric center of the
dEs, still a considerable amount of underlying galactic light of the
host galaxy could alter the actual properties of the nuclei. Therefore,
we attempt to subtract the galactic light from the nuclear
spectra. This is done by inward extrapolation of the exponentially-fitted light profile of the host
galaxy along the slit, yielding the amount of galaxy light
contained in the nucleus extraction aperture of 0".75 (central 3
pixels). The galaxy spectrum is extracted in a radial interval from 3"
to 8", scaled accordingly, and subtracted from the centrally extracted
spectrum. Further details of this process are given in Paudel et
al.\ (2010b, submitted to MNRAS). While certainly not being perfect, we expect that this approach
removes most of the galactic light contamination and thus provides
spectra that are fairly well representative for the stellar population
properties of dE nuclei.

\begin{table*}
 \centering
  \caption{The UCD sample. In the first four columns, we provide
    UCD number, position in the sky (RA, Dec),
    and radial velocity. In the last column, we indicate whether UCDs
    are in
    common with the studies of E07 or \citet{Firth09}.  }
  \label{ucds}
 \footnotesize
\begin{tabular}{llllllllll}
\hline
UCDs	&	RA	&	Dec	&	RV		& Age & [Z/H] & [$\alpha$/Fe] & m$_{r}$ &	Remark	\\
name	&	(h:m:s) 	&	($^{o}$ :' :")	&	(kms)	& Gyr & dex & dex & mag	&		\\
\hline

VUCD1	&	12:30:07.61	&	12:36:31.10	&	1227.8	$\pm$	1.7	&  11.9$^{  +1.8}_{ -2.0}$ & -0.90 $\pm$ 0.05  &  0.38 $\pm$ 0.09   & 18.6  &	E07  \\
VUCD2	&	12:30:48.24	&	12:35:11.10	&	911	$\pm$	6	&   5.9$^{  +1.7}_{ -0.5}$ & -0.77 $\pm$ 0.09  & -0.14 $\pm$ 0.08   & 18.6  &	F09  \\
VUCD3	&	12:30:57.40	&	12:25:44.8	&	710.6	$\pm$	3.5	&  15.0$^{  +0.1}_{ -1.3}$ &  0.13 $\pm$ 0.03  &  0.38 $\pm$ 0.03   & 18.1  &	E07  \\
VUCD4	&	12:31:04.51	&	11:56:36.8	&	919.7	$\pm$	1.7 	&  11.9$^{  +1.1}_{ -2.0}$ & -1.24 $\pm$ 0.05  & -0.00 $\pm$ 0.12   & 18.6  &	E07  \\
VUCD5 	&	12:31:11.90	&	12:41:01.20	&	1290	$\pm$	3	&  10.7$^{  +0.9}_{  0.1}$ & -0.40 $\pm$ 0.03  &  0.31 $\pm$ 0.02   & 18.5  &	E07  \\
VUCD6 	&	12:31:28.41	&	12:25:03.30	&	2101	$\pm$	4	&   8.3$^{  +6.7}_{ -1.3}$ & -1.03 $\pm$ 0.12  &  0.41 $\pm$ 0.09   & 18.7  &	E07  \\
VUCD7 	&	12:31:52.93	&	12:15:59.50	&	985	$\pm$	5	&  10.7$^{  +0.9}_{  0.1}$ & -0.54 $\pm$ 0.03  &  0.13 $\pm$ 0.04   & 18.0  &	E07  \\
VUCD8 	&	12:32:04.33	&	12:20:30.62	&	1531	$\pm$	19	&  11.6$^{  +1.0}_{ -0.9}$ & -1.24 $\pm$ 0.03  & -0.09 $\pm$ 0.09   & 19.1  &	F09  \\
VUCD9 	&	12:32:14.61	&	12:03:05.40	&	1325	$\pm$	5	&  11.6$^{  +1.0}_{  0.1}$ & -1.03 $\pm$ 0.06  &  0.07 $\pm$ 0.11   & 18.8  &	F09  \\
VUCD10	&	12:30:30.86	&	12:18:41.66	&	2425	$\pm$	103	&   9.8$^{  +2.8}_{ -0.8}$ & -0.89 $\pm$ 0.09  &  0.50 $\pm$ 0.04   & 19.1  &	New  \\

\hline
 \end{tabular}
\end{table*}

\section{Results}

\begin{figure}
 \includegraphics[width=8cm]{endp}
 \caption{Age, metallicity, and [$\alpha$/Fe]-abundance versus local
   projected galaxy density are shown for dE nuclei (black) and UCDs
   (green).}
 \label{env2}
\end{figure}

In order to derive stellar population parameters from the
measured line strengths, we translate our Lick index measurements into SSP-equivalent ages, metallicities, and
$\alpha$-element abundance ratios by comparing them to the model of
\citet{Thomas03} by $\chi^{2}-$minimization, following
\citet{Proctor02}.  We use nine well-measured indices (H$\delta_F$, H$\gamma_F$, Fe4383,
H$\beta$, Fe5015, Mgb, Fe5270, Fe5335 \& Fe5406) in case of the dE
nuclei. For the UCDs we use only H$\beta$,
Mgb, Fe5270 and Fe5335, because we only find these four indices
available in the literature for those three UCDs that we did not target
ourselves. Moreover, due to the slit mask placement, our observations
only cover the full range of indices (i.e., $\sim$4000 \AA{} to $\sim$5600\AA) for
three of the observed UCDs. For completeness, we also checked whether the use of
different sets of indices produces any significant discrepancy in the
estimated SSP parameters. We find that the estimated SSP
parameters agree well within the errors, although the use of
a larger set of indices naturally leads to smaller errors in the SSP
parameters. Therefore, we keep using all nine indices for the dE
nuclei in the further analysis.

\begin{figure}[h]
 \includegraphics[width=8cm]{env}
 \caption{Age, metallicity and [$\alpha$/Fe]-abundance versus
   nucleus/UCD magnitude, for dE nuclei (black) and UCDs (green).}
 \label{env}
\end{figure}

The relation between the stellar population parameters and the local
projected galaxy density is plotted in Fig.~\ref{env2}. The local projected
density has been calculated from a circular projected area enclosing
the 10th neighbor. It seems that there is a weak correlation between
the local projected density and the ages of the nuclei. But, more
prominent than the correlation, an age break is seen at a projected
density $\approx$40 sq.deg.$^{-1}$. We thus use this value to divide our dE sample in
two groups, located in cluster regions of lower/higher density. We
find median ages of 2.6 Gyr for the low density group and 11.6 Gyr at
high densities.

Almost all UCDs lie in the high density region as defined
above. Their ages have a median of 11.7 Gyr, strikingly consistent
with the nuclei in the same density regime. As a statistical
comparison, we performed a Kolmogorov-Smirov (K-S) test with the null
hypothesis that there is no difference in the distribution of SSP
parameters between the UCDs and the dE nuclei of the high density
group. We find that there is a probability of 88\%, 97\% and 73\% for having the same
age, metallicity, and [$\alpha$/Fe]-abundance distribution, respectively.

The metallicities of dE nuclei also show a difference between the low
and high density regions: the median values differ by more than 0.5
dex, although the scatter is fairly large. The UCDs also have
a fairly large scatter in metallicity, ranging from +0.1 to $-$1.4
dex. However, it is remarkable that only two UCDs (VUCD3 and 4) have
a metallicity above $-$0.5 dex. The [$\alpha$/Fe]-abundances are
 more or less consistent with solar in case of the dE nuclei,
 but also a slight increase with density can be recognized
 for the nuclei and (more clearly) for the UCDs. Although the scatter is fairly
 large, the Spearman's rank correlation coefficients are 0.3 and 0.7 for dE nuclei and
 UCDs, with the probabilities for the null hypothesis that there is no
 correlation being 8.5\% and 1.5\%, respectively.
 In case of the UCDs, 7 out 10 have super-solar values of  [$\alpha$/Fe].

The relation between the stellar population
parameters and the $r$-band magnitudes of UCDs and nuclei is presented in
Fig.~\ref{env}. We do not see a relation of age
and [$\alpha$/Fe]-abundance with luminosity, both for nuclei and
UCDs. Unlike that, the metallicity of both UCDs and dE nuclei
  tends to increase with increasing luminosity,
following the well known metallicity-luminosity relation. However,
bimodal peaks of the age and metallicity distributions of dE nuclei
can be seen as a striking feature in Fig~\ref{env} (right panel).
This indicates the inhomogeneous nature of dE nuclei, which can be divided into two different groups of stellar
population characteristics: a young metal-rich group and an old
metal-poor group. Brighter nuclei predominantly have metal-rich stellar
populations consistent with solar values. The metal-poor nuclei (metallicity $<$-0.5 dex)
have an average of $-$1.0 dex, and most of them are less luminous than
$m_r=19.2$ mag ($M_r=-11.9$ mag).

\section{Summary and Discussion}
We have derived stellar population parameters of Virgo cluster UCDs and
nuclei of early-type dwarf galaxies, through fitting measured Lick
absorption line strengths to models of
\citet{Thomas03}. Since we use simple stellar population models,
it must be noted that our estimated parameters are interpreted as {\it
  SSP-equivalent.}

Indications that the UCDs in the Virgo cluster more likely have formed
via dE destruction in dense cluster regions than in the Fornax cluster
have already been presented in the literature \citep{Mieske06,
  Cote04acs, Cote06}. An explanation could be the higher mass of the
Virgo cluster, which provides a deeper potential well with stronger
tidal forces than in the Fornax cluster. Virgo UCDs were also found to
be significantly different from GCs in colors and sizes, as they
are bluer and larger than GCs \citep{Hasegan05}. E07 showed that Virgo
UCDs have structural properties similar to the Fornax
UCDs. Furthermore, \citet{Propris05} showed with the {\it HST} that Fornax UCDs are more extended and have higher
surface brightnesses than typical dwarf nuclei. That is not
necessarily inconsistent with the stripping scenarios, because the
stripping process can alter structural parameters of the embedded
nuclei. Therefore, a direct comparison of structural parameters may
not be able to constrain the formation scenarios of UCDs properly.

In the light of our new age and metallicity estimates in the previous
section, we want to address the possibility of formation of Virgo UCDs via
tidal destruction of nucleated dEs. We observe that UCDs exhibit significantly older and
more metal deficient stellar populations as compared to dE nuclei
\emph{on average}. However, if we compare the ages of
UCDs and nuclei only in high density regions, where most of the UCDs
are located, we do not find any significant difference in their age
and metallicity distribution. Only two dE nuclei (VCC0965 and VCC1122)
out of 13 from the high density
group have ages less than 5 Gyr and
metallicities above -0.2 dex. Note,
however, that due to projection effects, a number of objects that are
actually located in the outskirts of the cluster must fall into
regions of high \emph{projected} density, lying in front or
behind the center along the line of sight. If we consider the
low density group of our sample to be representative for nuclei of dEs
outside of the (threedimensional) cluster center, then we actually
\emph{expect} to have a few objects with young ages and high
metallicities in the high density group, consistent with what we
observe. Moreover, even without  taking this effect into account, our
statistical tests already show that the age distributions of UCDs and dE nuclei are
similar when considering only the group of nuclei in the high density.
This supports the idea of the threshing of dEs in high density environments
 to form the UCDs.

 At low densities, a certain fraction of dEs probably still retained some central
 gas and transformed it into stars (some dEs are still doing this, see
 \citealt{Lisker06b}). Consequently, their nuclei today would indeed show a younger stellar
population than a UCD, the latter being an ``old nucleus''. For such dEs, not only the
orbital average should be located in the outskirts, but they should also
not have passed right through the center (e.g.\ on an eccentric orbit),
otherwise the gas would have been stripped by ram pressure and tidal forces. This
would explain the fact that we do not see young UCDs: a dE destruction
is only possible if the galaxy really goes through the center and
experiences the strongest tidal forces. If we assume that
the \emph{full}
destruction, i.e.\ the complete removal of the dE's main body, takes
significantly more orbital time than the gas stripping, then
nucleated dEs with an orbit leading through the center first lost
their gas, halting any star formation, and then became destroyed. Therefore,
we have no young UCDs.

In any case, young and bright dE nuclei
have either late or prolonged star formation activity. We assess
  this by modeling spectra of
  composite stellar populations through superposition of a young and
  an old component, using the model spectra of \cite{Vazdekis10}. We
fix the old population at an age of 11 Gyr and a metallicity of -1.2
dex, and add a component with solar metallicity and exponentially
declining star formation rate, starting from an age of 11 Gyr.
We find that spectra like those of the young nuclei (with an
SSP-equivalent age of
$\sim$3 Gyr) can be achieved when the exponentially declining
component formed stars until 2 Gyr ago, at which point it is
truncated. This means, if we assume our model to represent the
observed young nuclei, their star formation activity would have
stopped 9 Gyr later than that of the old nuclei.

On the one hand, the estimated ages and metallicities of UCDs nicely
agree with the ages and metallicities of nuclei of dEs from the dense
cluster regions. On the other hand, most of the old nuclei are fainter
than the UCDs. However, the UCD discoveries might suffer a selection
effect: if a \emph{faint} nucleus was stripped, it would now be
automatically counted into the globular cluster system of M87. We can
hardly estimate how many nucleated dEs have already been destroyed and
transformed into UCDs during the lifetime of the cluster. Thus we
cannot rule out or confirm any scenario \emph{just by counting} the
number of bright nuclei or that of UCDs. Only detailed future
simulations can resolve this issue.

 \section{Acknowledgments}

T.L.\ thanks Anna Pasquali and Eva Grebel for fruitful
discussions concerning UCDs, and Katharina Glatt for support
with the 2007 observing run. The authors thank G.\ Hensler, S.\ Kim,
R.\ Kotulla, H.\ Kuntschner, C.\ Mastropietro, S.-C.\ Rey, and
S.\ Weinmann for their valuable input to the 2009/10 observing
proposal and the data analysis.
   S.P.\ and T.L.\ are supported within the framework of the Excellence
    Initiative by the German Research Foundation (DFG) through the Heidelberg
    Graduate School of Fundamental Physics (grant number GSC 129/1). J.J. acknowledges support by the Gottlieb Daimler and Karl Benz Foundation. This study is based on the Sloan Digital Sky Survey
    (http://www.sdss.org).

\bibliographystyle{apj}

Cosmology and Nongalactic Astrophysics (astro-ph.CO)


Uniaxial contribution to the magnetic anisotropy of La0.67Sr0.33MnO3 thin films induced by orthorhombic crystal structure

Abstract: La0.67Sr0.33MnO3 (LSMO) thin films under compressive strain have an orthorhombic symmetry with (1-10)o and (001)o in-plane orientations. (The subscript o denotes the orthorhombic symmetry.) Here, we grew LSMO on cubic (LaAlO3)0.3-(Sr2AlTaO6)0.7 (LSAT) substrates and observed a uniaxial contribution to the magnetic anisotropy which is related to the orthorhombic crystal structure. Since the lattice mismatch is equal in the two directions, the general understanding of anisotropy in LSMO, which relates the uniaxial anisotropy to differences in strain, cannot explain the results. These findings suggest that the oxygen octahedra rotations associated with the orthorhombic structure, possibly resulting in different Mn-O-Mn bond angles and therefore a change in magnetic coupling between the [1-10]o and [001]o directions, determine the anisotropy. We expect these findings to lead to a better understanding of the microscopic origin of the magnetocrystalline anisotropy in LSMO.

\section{Introduction}

The perovskite oxide La$_{1-x}$A$_{x}$MnO$_3$ (A=Ca, Ba, Sr) has initiated a substantial body of research due to its colossal magnetoresistance \cite{Helmolt1993, Jin1994}. Extensive theoretical studies and experimental investigations utilizing La$_{1-x}$A$_{x}$MnO$_3$ perovskites in bulk form revealed a strong coupling between lattice distortions and magnetism, which substantially modify magnetic properties such as magnetoresistance and Curie temperature \cite{Moritomo1995, Hwang1995prb}. La$_{0.67}$Sr$_{33}$MnO$_3$ (LSMO) has the highest Curie temperature (370K) and a 100\% spin polarization \cite{Park1998, Bowen2003}. LSMO can be coherently grown on a range of commercially available perovskite substrates, such as e.g. NdGaO$_3$ (NGO) and SrTiO$_3$ (STO). The epitaxy stabilizes a different crystal structure which modifies the magnetic properties. Especially magnetic anisotropy is shown to be very sensitive to the LSMO crystal structure \cite{Kwon1997, Suzuki1998, Steenbeck1999, Tsui2000, Desfeux2001, Dho2003, Mathews2005}. When anisotropic strain is applied to the LSMO the magnetocrystalline anisotropy becomes strongly uniaxial \cite{Boschker2009, Mathews2010}, which is a useful tool to tailor the magnetic properties for device applications.

In the case of isotropic tensile strain, e.g. tetragonal LSMO thin films on cubic STO (001)$_\textrm{c}$ substrates, the magnetocrystalline anisotropy is biaxial with easy axes aligned with the $<$110$>$$_\textrm{pc}$ lattice directions \cite{Steenbeck1999, Tsui2000}. (We use subscript c, pc, o and t for cubic, pseudocubic, orthorhombic and tetragonal crystal structures, respectively.) Next to the magnetocrystalline anisotropy a uniaxial anisotropy is present as well, which is stepedge induced \cite{Wang2003, Mathews2005}. Here we investigate the case of isotropic compressive strain, which can be realized with LSMO thin films on the cubic (LaAlO$_3$)$_{0.3}$-(Sr$_2$AlTaO$_6$)$_{0.7}$ (LSAT) (001)$_\textrm{c}$ substrate. LSMO thin films under compressive strain adopt an orthorhombic crystal structure \cite{Vailionis2008, Vailionis2009}, which is characterized by the presence of oxygen octahedra rotations around all three pseudocubic crystal axes. As the magnetic coupling depends on the Mn-O-Mn bond angle \cite{Hwang1995, Radaelli1997}, it is an interesting question whether the magnetic properties are anisotropic in the different orthorhombic directions. Note that for another case, orthorhombic LSMO grown on NGO (110)$_\textrm{o}$ the difference in lattice mismatch between the two in-plane directions determines the anisotropy \cite{Boschker2009}, so this system is not suitable to study the effect of the orthorhombicity on the magnetic properties. For LSMO films grown on NGO (110)$_\textrm{o}$ the [1$\overline{1}$0]$_\textrm{o}$ lattice direction is subjected to less compressive strain than the [001]$_\textrm{o}$ lattice direction and is therefore the easy axis due to the strain anisotropy. For LSMO films grown on LSAT the lattice mismatch is equal and the anisotropy is due to the intrinsic anisotropy of the orthorhombic crystal structure between the [1$\overline{1}$0]$_\textrm{o}$ and [001]$_\textrm{o}$ lattice directions.

Here, we show that LSMO thin films can be grown coherently and untwinned on LSAT substrates and that the orthorhombicity induces anisotropic magnetic properties. Next to a biaxial component of the magnetic anisotropy, we observed a uniaxial component to the anisotropy which is aligned with the principal crystal directions and became more pronounced for increasing film thickness. We found no correlation between the uniaxial anisotropy and the stepedge direction. We obtained twinned samples, by growth on surfaces with reduced crystalline quality, for which the uniaxial anisotropy was reduced. Therefore we conclude that the uniaxial anisotropy is caused by the orthorhombic crystal structure.

\section{Samples and substrate preparation}
\begin{figure}
\centering
\includegraphics*[width=8cm]{fig1.eps}
\caption{(Color online) Surface analysis of the LSAT substrate by atomic force microscopy. a) after annealing at 1050$^\circ$C for 12 hours. b) after annealing at 950$^\circ$C for 1 hour,  The images are 5 by 5 $\mu$m and the color scale is 2 nm. The insets show a close-up of the roughness of the terraces.}
\label{substrates}
\end{figure}

The as-received LSAT substrates were cleaned with acetone and ethanol before they were subjected to an anneal treatment. Two anneal treatments were used to obtain respectively surfaces with smooth terraces and surfaces with sub unit cell roughness on the terraces. The first treatment consisted of an annealing step at 1050$^\circ$C for 12 hour in 1 bar of O$_2$ gas pressure. For the second treatment both the anneal time and temperature were decreased to 1 hours and 950$^\circ$C respectively. The surfaces were characterized with atomic force microscopy (AFM). Typical results are shown in figure~\ref{substrates}. For the substrates subjected to the first anneal treatment a step and terrace structure with~4\AA~(a single unit cell) step height was observed. The stepedges were not straight but meandering and~4\AA~deep holes are observed near the stepedges. Note that the miscut of these substrates is very small, approximately 0.02$^\circ$, giving a terrace width of more than 1 $\mu$m. Between the stepedges areas with atomically smooth morphology were observed. The substrates subjected to the second treatment show terraces with reduced crystalline quality, but still single unit cell step heights.

LSMO thin films were grown on the LSAT (001) substrates by pulsed laser deposition (PLD) from a stoichiometric target in an oxygen background pressure of 0.35 mbar with a laser fluence of 3 J/cm$^2$ and at a substrate temperature of 750$^\circ$C. After LSMO deposition, the films were cooled to room temperature at a rate of 10$^\circ$C/min in a 1 bar pure oxygen atmosphere. The growth settings were previously optimized and were identical to the ones used for LSMO films on other substrates \cite{MathewsPHD, Boschker2009}.

In this paper four samples are described, see table~\ref{table}. Sample U12 and U40 were grown on substrates with a smooth surface and have a thickness of 12 and 40 nm respectively. Samples T29 and T50 were grown on substrates with terraces with reduced crystalline quality and are respectively 29 and 50 nm thick. (The sample labels consist of either the letter T or U for twinned/untwinned and a number which indicates the sample thickness.) The sample thicknesses were measured with x-ray reflectivity measurements. AFM measurements (not shown) revealed surfaces of the thin film where the morphology of the substrate was still visible. The Curie temperature of the films was larger than 350 K (350 K was the measurement limit of the vibrating sample magnetometer) and did not depend on film thickness and the twinning, as discussed in the next section, of the films.

\begin{table*}
\begin{center}
\begin{tabular}{|c|c|c|c|c|c|c|c|}
\hline
&&&&&&&\\[-1.5ex]
Sample&  Thickness &Substrate & Crystal &Satellites &$\phi_\textrm{easy}$($^\circ$) & $k_\textrm{u}/k_1$ & $k_\textrm{u}$ \\
&(nm)&surface&&&&& (J/m$^3$)\\
&&&&&&&\\[-1.5ex]
\hline
&&&&&&&\\[-1.5ex]
U12 &12&smooth&untwinned&not observed	&	40$\pm$1  &	0.18 $\pm$0.05 &  110$\pm$30\\
U40	&40&smooth&untwinned&along [001]$_\textrm{o}$&	12$\pm$1  &	0.91 $\pm$0.03 &	540$\pm$5\\
T29	&29&rough&twinned&both directions&	42$\pm$1  &	0.1 $\pm$0.05    &  60$\pm$30\\
T50	&50&rough&twinned&both directions&	31$\pm$1  &	0.48 $\pm$0.03   &  290$\pm$25\\
\hline
\end{tabular}
\caption{The ratio between the anisotropy constants for the various samples. The angle of the easy axis is obtained from the fitting procedure and the ratio between the anisotropy constants is calculated with equation \ref{phieasy}.}
\label{table}
\end{center}
\end{table*}

\section{Structural characterization}
The top panel of figure \ref{xrd} shows reciprocal space maps of LSMO and LSAT around the (204)$_\textrm{c}$, (024)$_\textrm{c}$, ($\overline{2}$04)$_\textrm{c}$ and (0$\overline{2}$4)$_\textrm{c}$ LSAT reflections. These results were obtained from sample U40. The LSMO has a slightly distorted orthorhombic (monoclinic) unit cell with (110)$_\textrm{o}$ out-of-plane orientation and (1$\overline{1}$0)$_\textrm{o}$ and (001)$_\textrm{o}$ in-plane orientations. The orthorhombicity can be deduced from figures \ref{xrd}a and \ref{xrd}c which show a difference in lattice spacing for the (260)$_\textrm{o}$ and (620)$_\textrm{o}$ LSMO reflections, which represent a dissimilarity between the LSMO a and b lattice parameters. The lattice parameters are as follows: a=5.47$\pm$0.01\AA, b=5.51$\pm$0.01\AA,
c=7.74$\pm$0.01\AA, $\alpha$=90$\pm$0.1$^\circ$, $\beta$=90$\pm$0.1$^\circ$ and $\gamma$=89.6$\pm$0.1$^\circ$.

Next to the LSMO (444)$_\textrm{o}$ and (44$\overline{4}$)$_\textrm{o}$ reflections satellites are observed. In a previous paper \cite{Vailionis2009} we have discussed the orthorhombic crystal structure and the presence of satellite peaks in the [001]$_\textrm{o}$ direction for LSMO grown on NGO (110)$_\textrm{o}$ substrates. The satellites result from periodic lattice modulations which partially relieve the applied strain \cite{Vigliante2001, Farag2005, Gebhardt2007}. As the LSMO crystal structure can easily relieve strain in the [1$\overline{1}$0]$_\textrm{o}$ lattice direction with a change in the $\gamma$ angle, the lattice modulations are only present in the [001]$_\textrm{o}$ direction. We conclude that LSMO films on LSAT behave similarly as LSMO on NGO.

The panels e-h) of figure \ref{xrd} show the same reciprocal space maps, but obtained for sample T50. Dissimilar lattice spacings are observed in both in-plane directions and the satellite peaks are visible in all reciprocal space maps. Zhou et al. observed similar satellite peaks around reflections of LSMO on LSAT and attributed the satellites to an in-plane superlattice with alternating [1$\overline{1}$0]$_\textrm{o}$ and [$\overline{1}1$0]$_\textrm{o}$ orientations \cite{Zhou2007}. This cannot be the case for our samples as the [$\overline{1}1$0]$_\textrm{o}$ in-plane orientation would result in reciprocal space maps with both the (620)$_\textrm{o}$ and the (260)$_\textrm{o}$ peak visible in the same plot. In e.g. figure \ref{xrd}f this is clearly not the case. Together with the presence of the satellites in figure \ref{xrd}b and \ref{xrd}d only in the [001]$_\textrm{o}$ direction, we conclude that sample D is twinned in domains with different [1$\overline{1}$0]$_\textrm{o}$ and [001]$_\textrm{o}$ orientations.

For the two thinner samples we observed the same behavior as the thicker samples with equal substrate treatment (not shown). Sample U12 was untwinned as concluded from the positions of the Bragg reflections, but here no satellites could be observed. Sample T29 was twinned with satellites in both directions in reciprocal space.

To explain the absence of twinning in the samples with smooth surfaces we compare our results to the more widely studied SrRuO$_3$ (SRO) thin films on STO substrates. SRO is orthorhombic and single domain films can be realized by growth on smooth vicinal substrates with stepedges approximately aligned with the main crystal axis. In that case the [001]$_\textrm{o}$ lattice directions aligns with the stepedge direction \cite{Gan1997}. This has been explained in three different ways. Gan et al. suggested that single domain growth is related to the observed stepflow growth mode \cite{Gan1997}. Maria et al. suggested that stepedge strain is the dominant mechanism as the films are not orthorhombic at deposition temperature \cite{Maria2000}. Finally Vailionis et al. suggested that the films are tetragonal at deposition temperature and that the [001]$_\textrm{t}$ lattice direction aligns preferentially with the stepedges \cite{Vailionis2007}. In contrast to SRO the LSMO films have a preferred orientation with the [001]$_\textrm{o}$ lattice direction aligned perpendicular to the stepedges and does not grow in stepflow mode. Therefore the explanation by Maria et al. is the most likely candidate to explain the single domain growth. During cooldown orthorhombic domains nucleate at the stepedges and the stepedge strain favors octahedra buckling in one direction and the domains continue to grow across the terraces resulting in a single domain film. For the samples with a rough surface the orthorhombic domains can nucleate at defects at the substrate surface and no preferential orientation exists, resulting in twinned films.

In summary, growth on a relatively smooth surface results in untwinned LSMO films, while growth on terraces with reduced crystalline quality results in twinned LSMO films. We used the difference in magnetic properties between twinned and untwinned films to identify the contribution from the orthorhombicity as it should be reduced for the twinned samples.

\begin{figure}
\centering
\includegraphics*[width=8cm]{fig2.eps}
\caption{[Color online] Top panel: Reciprocal space maps around the a) (204)$_\textrm{c}$, b) (024)$_\textrm{c}$, c) ($\overline{2}$04)$_\textrm{c}$ and d) (0$\overline{2}$4)$_\textrm{c}$ LSAT reflections of the 40 nm thick sample grown on a smooth substrate (sample U40). In a) and c) the dissimilar spacing of the (260)$_\textrm{o}$ and (620)$_\textrm{o}$ LSMO reflections is clearly observed while in b) and d) satellites are present next to the (444)$_\textrm{o}$ and (44$\overline{4}$)$_\textrm{o}$ LSMO reflections. Middle panel: Reciprocal space maps around the e) (204)$_\textrm{c}$, f) (024)$_\textrm{c}$, g) ($\overline{2}$04)$_\textrm{c}$ and h) (0$\overline{2}$4)$_\textrm{c}$ LSAT reflections of the 50 nm thick sample grown on a rough substrate (sample T50). The satellites are present in all maps and both e) and h) show intensity at the position for the (260)$_\textrm{o}$ LSMO reflection. Therefore this sample is twinned. Bottom panel: Schematic of the real space crystal structure of an untwinned sample viewed along i) [001]$_\textrm{o}$ and j) [1$\overline{1}$0]$_\textrm{o}$.}
\label{xrd}
\end{figure}

\section{Magnetic characterization}
The samples were characterized with vibrating sample magnetometer (VSM, Model 10 VSM by Microsense) measurements at room temperature. The in-plane angle of the applied field was varied to determine the magnetic anisotropy. For all field angles a full magnetization loop was measured and the remanent magnetization was obtained from the loop. Figure~\ref{lsat13hb86mag}a shows the magnetization loops of sample U12 with the field aligned with three high symmetry directions. In figure~\ref{lsat13hb86mag}b we plotted the dependence of the remanent magnetization on the in-plane field angle. The largest remanence was found for an applied field at approximately 40 degrees with respect to the [001]$_\textrm{o}$ in-plane lattice direction. A predominant biaxial behavior is observed with easy axes aligned with the [110]$_\textrm{pc}$ and symmetry related crystal directions. Next to this biaxial anisotropy a small uniaxial anisotropy is present as well which can be seen in the difference in remanent magnetization at 0 and 90 degrees and the shift of the easy axes to $\pm$40$^\circ$. This uniaxial contribution becomes more pronounced in the thicker film (sample U40) shown in figure \ref{lsat13hb86mag}c and \ref{lsat13hb86mag}d. The remanent magnetization of sample B at 0 degrees approaches the easy axes value and the remanent magnetization at 90 degrees is much smaller, only 20 percent of the easy axes value. Due to the combination of uniaxial and biaxial anisotropy the easy axes are shifted to $\pm$15$^\circ$. The hard axis magnetization loop does not show a switch of the magnetization, but an almost linear dependence of the magnetization on the applied field which is characteristic for a hard axis loop in a sample with a uniaxial anisotropy.

A similar thickness dependence of the anisotropy was also found for the samples T29 and T50, which are twinned. The results are plotted in figure~\ref{lsat13hb86mag}e-\ref{lsat13hb86mag}h. A biaxial and a uniaxial contribution are present and the uniaxial contribution is more pronounced in the thicker film. Sample T50 shows easy axes which are shifted to $\pm$30$^\circ$ and the hard axis remanence is 50 percent of the easy axis value. Comparing samples U12 and U40 with samples T29 and T50 we find that the uniaxial contribution is more pronounced in the samples U12 and U40.

\begin{figure}
\centering
\includegraphics*[width=9cm]{fig3.eps}
\caption{[Color online] a) Magnetization loops with the field aligned with 3 high symmetry directions and b) remanence versus field angle dependence obtained from sample U12. The latter graph shows the data from the measurements (black dots) and the result from the fit procedure described in the text (blue line). c) and d) The corresponding graphs for sample U40. e) and f) Sample T29. g) and h) Sample T50. The field angle is defined with respect to the crystal structure, 0$^\circ$ (90$^\circ$) corresponds to the [001]$_\textrm{o}$ ([1$\overline{1}$0]$_\textrm{o}$) lattice direction.}
\label{lsat13hb86mag}
\end{figure}

\section{Discussion}

In order to quantify the biaxial and uniaxial contribution to the anisotropy we start with a general anisotropy energy equation which contains both a biaxial and a uniaxial contribution \cite{Chikazumi1964}.
\begin{equation}
E_a/V = k_\textrm{u} \sin^2(\phi-\phi_1) + \frac{k_1}{4} \sin^2(2(\phi-\phi_2)),
\label{energy}
\end{equation}
in which $E_a$ is the anisotropy energy, $V$ the volume of the sample, $k_\textrm{u}$ ($k_1$) the uniaxial (biaxial) anisotropy constant, $\phi$ the angle of the magnetization, $\phi_1$=0$^\circ$ ($\phi_2$=45$^\circ$) the angle of the easy axis of the uniaxial (biaxial) anisotropy. The easy axes are found by minimizing the energy with respect to $\phi$. This results in:
\begin{equation}
\left\{
\begin{array}{ll}
\cos(2\phi_{\textrm{easy}}) = k_\textrm{u}/k_1 & \textrm{for }k_\textrm{u}<k_1,\\
\phi_\textrm{easy}=0 & \textrm{for }k_\textrm{u}\geq k_1,\\
\end{array}\right.
\label{phieasy}
\end{equation}
from which the easy axes, $\phi_\textrm{easy}$, can be obtained. The measured remanence versus field angle dependencies are the projections of the magnetization, which at remanence is aligned with the easy axis, onto the measurement direction:
\begin{equation}
M_\textrm{rem} (\theta) = M_0 \cos(\theta-\phi_\textrm{easy}),
\label{rem}
\end{equation}
where $M_\textrm{rem}$ is the remanent magnetization, $\theta$ is the field angle, $M_0$ is the remanence in the easy direction and $\phi_\textrm{easy}$ is the closest easy axis. Equation \ref{rem} has been used to obtain the fits in figure \ref{lsat13hb86mag}. The measured data, and therefore the anisotropy, is well described by equation~\ref{energy}-\ref{rem}. This allows us to extract the ratio between the uniaxial and biaxial anisotropy energies $k_\textrm{u}/k_1$. The results are presented in table \ref{table}. For all samples the uniaxial anisotropy energy is found to be smaller than the biaxial anisotropy energy. Between the different samples the ratio $k_\textrm{u}/k_1$ changes by a factor of 10.

The anisotropy field $H_\textrm{an}$ can be obtained from the slope d$M$/d$H$ at $H$=0 in the hard axis magnetization loop of a material with uniaxial anisotropy by the relation
\begin{equation}
H_\textrm{an} = \frac{M_\textrm{sat}}{\textrm{d}M/\textrm{d}H}.
\label{ku1}
\end{equation}
Here, $M_\textrm{sat}$ is the saturation magnetization, $M$ is the magnetization and $H$ is the applied field. The anisotropy energy is given by
\begin{equation}
2 k_\textrm{u} = H_\textrm{an} \mu_0 M_\textrm{sat},
\label{ku2}
\end{equation}
in which $\mu_0$ is the permeability of free space. We obtained a value for $k_\textrm{u}$ of 540$\pm$5 J/m$^3$ for the almost uniaxial sample U40. This would imply a biaxial anisotropy constant of 600$\pm$10 J/m$^3$ which corresponds well with earlier obtained results \cite{Steenbeck1999, MathewsPHD}. Therefore one can assume that the $k_1$ value is the same for all films and independent of thickness. The uniaxial anisotropy constants are calculated from the $k_\textrm{u}/k_1$ ratios and presented in table~\ref{table} as well. The uniaxial anisotropy is very weak for these samples, only in the range 50-600 J/m$^3$.

Next we turn to the origin of both contributions to the anisotropy. The biaxial contribution with easy axes aligned with the $<$110$>$$_\textrm{pc}$ lattice directions corresponds well with earlier results of magnetic anisotropy of LSMO on STO (001)$_\textrm{c}$ substrates \cite{Steenbeck1999, Tsui2000}. This represents the intrinsic magnetocrystalline anisotropy of LSMO strained to in-plane cubic symmetry.  For the uniaxial contribution different explanations exist. It is well known that a weak uniaxial anisotropy in LSMO can be the result of stepedge induced anisotropy \cite{Wang2003,Mathews2005}. However, the thickness dependence of the uniaxial anisotropy is at odds with an interpretation in terms of stepedge induced anisotropy. The stepedge induced anisotropy compared to the biaxial anisotropy should scale with the ratio of the volume of the surface layers containing the stepedges (in practice the monolayers at the interfaces) to the volume of the film. Therefore the stepedge induced anisotropy should be most pronounced for the thinnest films as the miscut of the samples was comparable. Here the opposite is observed. Also the uniaxial easy axis was not aligned with the stepedge directions in most of the samples, sometimes even 90 degrees perpendicular to the stepedges. This rules out the contribution of stepedge induced anisotropy.

The uniaxial easy axis is aligned with the [001]$_\textrm{o}$ lattice direction while the hard axis is aligned with the [1$\overline{1}$0]$_\textrm{o}$ lattice direction. This, together with the reduced uniaxial anisotropy for the twinned samples, relates the observed anisotropy to the orthorhombicity of the LSMO films. It is unclear what the origin of the magnetic anisotropy in the orthorhombic crystal structure is. In general magnetic anisotropy in manganites is explained by a global strain field which relates the easy axis to the maximum strain direction \cite{Tokuracmobookh4}. This cannot be applied for these samples, as the LSMO has equal strain in the [001]$_\textrm{o}$ and the [1$\overline{1}$0]$_\textrm{o}$ lattice directions due to the cubic symmetry of the substrate. Note that for the case of orthorhombic LSMO on NGO (110)$_\textrm{o}$ the uniaxial easy axis is aligned with the [1$\overline{1}$0]$_\textrm{o}$ lattice direction and is due to strain anisotropy \cite{Boschker2009}, in contrast to the observed anisotropy of LSMO on LSAT.

The difference between the two lattice directions in the orthorhombic symmetry is due to the different oxygen octahedra rotations. We therefore suspect that the microscopic origin of the magnetocrystalline anisotropy in LSMO is effected by the oxygen octahedra rotations. A plausible scenario would be that the difference in octahedra rotations along the [1$\overline{1}$0]$_\textrm{o}$ and [001]$_\textrm{o}$ directions results in a different Mn-O-Mn bond angle ($<\textrm{Mn-O-Mn}>$)in these two directions. For manganites it is well known that the bandwidth, due to the double exchange mechanism, depends on the Mn-O-Mn bond angle according to \cite{Radaelli1997}
\begin{equation}
W=\frac{cos\omega}{d^{3.5}_{MnO}}
\end{equation}
in which $W$ is the bandwidth, $\omega=0.5(\pi-<\textrm{Mn-O-Mn}>$ is proportional to the amount of octahedra rotation and $d_{MnO}$ is the Mn-O distance. This suggests that for LSMO on LSAT the Mn-O-Mn bond angle is larger in the [001]$_\textrm{o}$ direction than in the [1$\overline{1}$0]$_\textrm{o}$ direction, resulting in an increase in the bandwidth and therefore the easy axis is aligned with this direction. This explanation is also consistent with the increase of $k_\textrm{u}/k_1$ with film thickness. Due to structural reconstructions at the interface and the surface \cite{Herger2008}, the oxygen octahedra rotations in the surface and interfacial regions deviate from those of the bulk of the film. The biaxial anisotropy is intrinsic to MnO$_6$ octahedra and not sensitive to the structural reconstructions. In a follow up work we will investigate the crystal structure, and especially the octahedra rotations, in more detail, in order to resolve the microscopic origin of the magnetocrystalline anisotropy in LSMO.

An alternative interpretation of the magnetic data is that the anisotropy is somehow related to the lattice modulations observed with the satellites in the XRD measurements. As the lattice modulations only occur in the orthorhombic [001]$_\textrm{o}$ direction, it is not possible to discriminate between anisotropy induced by the orthorhombic crystal structure and anisotropy induced by the lattice modulations in our experiment. Nevertheless, we expect that the lattice modulations result in microtwins which have reduced magnetic coupling at the microtwin boundaries. The shape anisotropy of each microtwin would then be aligned with the [1$\overline{1}$0]$_\textrm{o}$ direction, contrary to the observation of a magnetic [001]$_\textrm{o}$ easy axis.

Although one would suspect that the uniaxial anisotropy would disappear for the twinned samples, this is not the case. We assume that this is due to the dominant presence of grains with one orientation.

\section{Conclusion}
LSMO films with an orthorhombic crystal structure can be grown coherently and untwinned on cubic LSAT substrates. The magnetic anisotropy of the films is described by a combination of biaxial anisotropy with easy axes along the $<$110$>$$_\textrm{pc}$ directions and a uniaxial anisotropy with easy axis along the [001]$_\textrm{o}$ direction. For thicker films the uniaxial anisotropy becomes more pronounced. The uniaxial part of the anisotropy is induced by the orthorhombic symmetry of the LSMO. We expect these findings to lead to a better understanding of the microscopic origin of the magnetocrystalline anisotropy in LSMO.

This research was financially supported by the Dutch Science Foundation, by NanoNed, a nanotechnology program of the Dutch Ministry of Economic Affairs and by the NanOxide program of the European Science Foundation.

\bibliographystyle{apsrev}

Materials Science (cond-mat.mtrl-sci); Strongly Correlated Electrons (cond-mat.str-el)


Comparison of ground-based and Gaia photometry of astrometric radio sources

Abstract: A comparison was made between $Gaia$ magnitudes and magnitudes obtained from ground-based observations for astrometric radio sources . The comparison showed that these magnitudes often not agree well. There may be several reasons for this disagreement. Nevertheless, such an analysis can serve as an additional filter for verification of the object cross-identification. On the other hand, it can help to detect possible errors in optical magnitudes of astrometric radio sources coming from unreliable or inconsistent data sources.

\section{INTRODUCTION}

Comparison of the VLBI and $Gaia$ positions of astrometric radio sources gives us an opportunity to investigate
both systematic errors of both catalogs and the physical structure and evolution of objects observed by optical
and radio techniques.
However, the reliability of the results of such studies depends on the reliability of cross-identification between
objects in VLBI and $Gaia$ catalogs.
Although for most sources the cross-identification looks straightforward, this is is not always the case.
Errors in cross-identification introduce additional noise and outliers in the position difference statistics,
which may impact the result and conclusions of these studies.

Different authors use different strategies for cross-identification between the objects in radio and optical catalogs
(Mignard et al. 2016, Petrov and Kovalev 2017, Lindegren et al. 2018, Malkin 2018, Makarov et al. 2019, Liu et al. 2020).
They all are based on analysis of the differences between VLBI and $Gaia$ source position, sometimes along with
other criteria, such as quality of the $Gaia$ astrometric solution (Mignard et al. 2016, Lindegren et al. 2018)
or object density in the vicinity of the source (Petrov and Kovalev 2017).
Some of these supplement criteria may be disputable, but a comparison and discussion of cross-identification
methods described in the literature is beyond the scope of this paper.

The present study is aimed at an investigation of a possibility of using $Gaia$ and ground-based photometry
as a supplement criterium to verify the cross-identification based on an analysis of the difference between
radio and optics positions.

\section{COMPARISON OF GROUND-BASED AND GAIA PHOTOMETRY}
\label{sect:comparison}

In this study, the $G$ magnitudes given in the $Gaia$ DR2 release were compared to ground-based magnitudes
provided in the OCARS catalog\footnote{http://www.gaoran.ru/english/as/ac\_vlbi/ocars\_m.txt} (Malkin 2018).
There are 8197 sources in common between the $Gaia$ DR2 and OCARS.
7179 of them have photometry data in OCARS in at least one of four bands: $V$, $r$, $R$, and $i$,
close to $Gaia$ $G$ band.
The latter sources were used in this work.

OCARS magnitudes are taken from different data sources:
Sloan Digital Sky Survey\footnote{http://www.sdss.org} (SDSS),
NASA/IPAC Extragalactic Database\footnote{http://ned.ipac.caltech.edu} (NED),
SIMBAD\footnote{http://simbad.u-strasbg.fr/simbad/} database managed by the Centre de Donnees astronomiques de Strasbourg (CDS),
the Million Quasars (Milliquas) catalog\footnote{https://heasarc.gsfc.nasa.gov/W3Browse/all/milliquas.html},
and Large Quasar Astrometric Catalogue\footnote{https://cdsarc.unistra.fr/viz-bin/cat/J/A\%2bA/624/A145} (LQAC),
in the order of preference.
The contribution of two latter catalogs is small.
The data in these catalogs and data bases are not always consistent and reliable.
To mitigate this impact, the average magnitude of $V, r$, $R$, and $i$ was  used in this work.
The magnitude differences $Gaia$ $G$ minus OCARS for all 7179 common sources are shown in Fig.~\ref{fig:gaia-ocars}.
One can see that they can be both positive and negative in the interval from about $-3^m$ to about $9^m$.

\begin{figure}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{gaia-ocars.eps}
\caption{Differences between $Gaia$ $G$ and ground-based magnitudes for 7179 common sources between the $Gaia$ DR2 and OCARS catalogs.}
\label{fig:gaia-ocars}
\end{figure}

The positive magnitude differences can generally be explained by the fact that corresponding objects are extended galaxies
hosting AGN observed by VLBI.
Their ground-based (OCARS) magnitudes are related to the integrated flux from the entire galaxy
or its wide central region, whereas $Gaia$ most probably observes the brightest point-like center of the galaxy.
Three typical objects of this type are shown in Fig.~\ref{fig:images}.
Therefore, positive magnitude difference is mostly a trivial case.

\begin{figure}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{images.eps}
\caption{Top row: three objects with large negative $Gaia$ minus OCARS optical magnitude difference. They all are large galaxies.
  Bottom row: three faint objects with large positive $G$--$R$ difference.
  The images are provided by the Aladin Sky Atlas (\mbox{https://aladin.u-strasbg.fr/}).}
\label{fig:images}
\end{figure}

To check this conclusion, the same data were re-organized and depicted in Fig~\ref{fig:gaia-ocars_rg}, where the magnitude difference $G$--$R$
is shown as a function of $R$.
One can see that optically faint objects show relatively small magnitude difference $Gaia$ minus OCARS, while bright objects show much large
differences.
Most probably, this is a consequence of the $Gaia$ observing mode for which the faint galaxies are observed as a single object,
unlike large (extended) galaxies.
Detailed discussion of observation of galaxies with $Gaia$ is given by de Souza et al. 2014.

\begin{figure}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{gaia-ocars_rg.eps}
\caption{Differences between $Gaia$ $G$ and ground-based $R$ magnitudes as function of $R$.}
\label{fig:gaia-ocars_rg}
\end{figure}

More interesting is a case of negative magnitude difference, which is the subject of a special investigation
for each source that shows such a feature.
There may be various reasons for this:
\begin{itemize}
\item The observed magnitude difference may be a result of wrong cross-identification of the astrometric
radio source with $Gaia$ object.
\item The observed magnitude difference may be a result of a source optical variability.
The photometry data in $Gaia$ and OCARS were generally made at different epochs as discussed
by Damljanovi\'c et al. 2017.
Results of optical monitoring of ICRF sources made by, e.g., Taris et al. 2016, showed the spread of
the brightness variations may exceeds two magnitudes.
\item The observed magnitude difference may be a result of wrong cross-identification of the radio source
with an optical object in one of the catalogs contributed to OCARS.
In the course of the present work about a half of dozen of such cases was found.
\end{itemize}

Of course, the same considerations can be applied to positive $Gaia$ minus OCARS magnitude differences.

\section{CONCLUSION}
\label{sect:conclusion}

The goal of this work was to investigate whether a comparison of the optical magnitudes of astrometric radio
sources with the magnitudes obtained from ground-based (or other wide-field) observations can be useful to improve
the reliability of cross-identification of $Gaia$ objects with radio sources included in VLBI astrometric catalogs.
It was found that the direct comparison of $Gaia$ and ground-based magnitudes can hardly be practical for this purpose.
A typical case is a bright galaxy for which VLBI and $Gaia$ positions are measured for the optically and radio
strong central point-like area (AGN), whereas the ground-based magnitudes are related to the integral galaxy flux.

Therefore, comparison of the $Gaia$ and OCARS magnitudes cannot be used straightforward for check of object
cross-identification in $Gaia$ and VLBI catalogs.
However, in some cases, this may be useful to detect a wrong cross-identification, especially in case of negative
$Gaia$ minus OCARS magnitude differences.
Besides, this comparison allows us to identify possible inconsistencies or even errors in a ground-based photometry
data taken from different, not always reliable, catalogs and data bases.
In particular, in the course of this work, several OCARS sources with erroneous magnitudes were detected and
corrected or flagged in OCARS.

In any case, a further deeper investigations in this direction may be useful to improve the reliability of the
object cross-identification in VLBI and $Gaia$ catalogs.

\vskip 6.5mm
\centerline{\titlefont Acknowledgments}
\vskip 3mm

This work has made use of data from the European Space Agency (ESA) mission $Gaia$\footnote{https://www.cosmos.esa.int/gaia},
processed by the $Gaia$ Data Processing and Analysis
Consortium\footnote{https://www.cosmos.esa.int/web/gaia/dpac/consortium} (DPAC).
Funding for the DPAC has been provided by national institutions, in particular the institutions participating
in the $Gaia$ Multilateral Agreement.

This research has made use of the SIMBAD database and Aladin Sky Atlas operated at at the Centre de Donn\'ees
Astronomiques\footnote{https://cds.u-strasbg.fr/} (CDS), Strasbourg, France,
and the SAO/NASA Astrophysics Data System\footnote{https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/} (ADS).

This research has made use of the SAO/NASA Astrophysics Data System\footnote{https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/} (ADS).

This work was partly supported by the Russian Government program of Competitive Growth of Kazan Federal University.

The author is grateful to Sergey Klioner for useful discussion and to the anonymous referee for suggestions
on improving the manuscript.

\references

de Souza, R. E., Krone-Martins, A., dos Anjos, S., Ducourant, C., Teixeira, R. : 2014, \journal{Astron. Astrophys.}, \vol{568}, A124.

Damljanovi\'c, G, Taris, F., Andrei, A. : 2017, \journal{Astrometry and Astrophysics in the Gaia sky, Proc. IAU}, \vol{330}, 88.

Lindegren, L., Hern\'andez, J., Bombrun, A., et al. : 2018, \journal{Astron. Astrophys.}, \vol{616}, A2.

Liu, N., Lambert, S. B., Zhu, Z., Liu, J. C. : 2020, \journal{Astron. Astrophys.}, \vol{634}, A28.

Makarov, V. V., Berghea, C. T., Frouard, J., Fey, A., Schmitt, H. R. : 2019, \journal{Astrophys. J.}, \vol{873}, 132.

Malkin, Z. : 2018, \journal{Astrophys. J. Suppl. Series}, \vol{239}, 20.

Mignard, F., Klioner, S., Lindegren, L., et al. : 2016, \journal{Astron. Astrophys.}, \vol{595}, A5.

Petrov, L., Kovalev, Y. Y. : 2017, \journal{Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc.}, \vol{467}, L71.

Taris, F., Andrei, A., Roland, J., Klotz, A., Vachier, F., Souchay, J. : 2016, \journal{Astron. Astrophys.}, \vol{587}, A112.

\endreferences

\end{document}

Instrumentation and Methods for Astrophysics (astro-ph.IM); Astrophysics of Galaxies (astro-ph.GA)