1: %\documentstyle[aaspp4, psfig]{article}
2: %\documentclass{aastex}
3: \documentclass[12pt,preprint]{aastex}
4: %\documentclass[12pt,preprint]{emulateapj}
5: %\documentclass[preprint2]{aastex}
6: %\documentclass[preprint]{aastex}
7:
8: %\received{}
9: %\revised{}
10: %\accepted{}
11:
12:
13: %\def\label#1{\ifthesisdraft{%\tenit
14: %\normalsize\em\hspace{1.5cm}#1}\fi\origlabel{#1}}
15:
16: \usepackage{graphicx}
17:
18: \newcommand{\be}{\begin{equation}}
19: \newcommand{\ee}{\end{equation}}
20: \newcommand{\bd}{\begin{displaymath}}
21: \newcommand{\ed}{\end{displaymath}}
22: \newcommand{\ba}{\begin{eqnarray}}
23: \newcommand{\ea}{\end{eqnarray}}
24: \newcommand{\gr}{$\gamma$-ray }
25: \newcommand{\grs}{$\gamma$-rays }
26: \newcommand{\grsn}{$\gamma$-rays}
27: \newcommand{\mkp}{\bf }
28: \newcommand{\mkpp}{\bf }
29: \newcommand{\ppe}{\bf }
30: \newcommand{\nb}{\bf }
31: \shorttitle{3D-distribution of ISM}
32: \begin{document}
33:
34: \date{}
35: %\title{Drawn to the bar: the distribution of molecular gas in the Milky Way Galaxy}
36: \title{3D Distribution of Molecular Gas in the Barred Milky Way}
37: \author{Martin Pohl}
38: \affil{Department of Physics and Astronomy,
39: Iowa State University\\
40: Ames, Iowa 50011-3160, USA}
41: \author{Peter Englmaier}
42: \affil{Institut f\"ur Theoretische Physik, Universit\"at Z\"urich,
43: 8057 Z\"urich, Switzerland}
44: \author{Nicolai Bissantz}
45: \affil{Fakult\"at f\"ur Mathematik, Ruhr-Universit\"at Bochum, 44780 Bochum, Germany}
46:
47: \email{mkp@iastate.edu}
48:
49: \begin{abstract}
50: We present a new model of the three-dimensional
51: distribution of molecular gas in the Milky Way Galaxy, based on CO line data.
52:
53: {Our analysis is based on a gas-flow simulation {of the inner Galaxy
54: using smoothed-particle hydrodynamics (SPH) using} a realistic barred
55: gravitional potential derived from the observed
56: COBE/DIRBE near-IR light distribution. The gas model prescribes the
57: gas orbits much better than a simple circular rotation model and is
58: highly constrained by observations, but it cannot {predict} local details.
59: In this study, we provide a 3D map of the observed molecular gas distribution using the
60: velocity field from the SPH model.
61: }
62: A comparison with studies of
63: the Galactic Center region suggests that the main structures are reproduced but somewhat stretched
64: along the line-of-sight, probably on account of limited resolution of the underlying SPH simulation.
65: The gas model will be publicly available and may prove useful in a number of applications,
66: among them the analysis of diffuse gamma-ray emission as measured with GLAST.
67: \end{abstract}
68: \keywords{ISM: structure, Galaxy: kinematics and dynamics}
69:
70: \section{Why another deconvolution of gas data?}
71: Models of the distribution of interstellar gas reflect the structure of the
72: Milky Way Galaxy and have therefore considerable merit in themselves.
73: In addition, they are also highly valuable for a
74: variety of other applications, among them the physical analysis of diffuse Galactic
75: gamma-ray emission \citep{ber93,hu97,pe98}.
76: Knowledge of the gas distribution is essential for studies of the
77: large-scale cosmic-ray
78: distribution in the Galaxy, as well as for investigations of small-scale variations
79: in the density and spectrum of cosmic rays.
80: The upcoming launch of GLAST, a GeV-band
81: gamma-ray observatory of unprecedented sensitivity, makes it desirable to have
82: an up-to-date
83: model of the three-dimensional distribution of the ISM. There are two main
84: reasons why a new study would be required:
85: The various components of interstellar gas
86: are traced by their line emission, and the quality of the line data available today
87: is much higher than it was in the Nineties. Also, it is now well established that
88: the Galaxy contains a central bar \citep[e.g.][]{Babu+Gil05,ben05}, which
89: causes non-circular motion of interstellar gas in the inner Galaxy, thus changing the kinematic
90: relation between the location on the line-of-sight and the velocity relative to the
91: local standard of rest (LSR).
92:
93: Here we report results for the deconvolution of CO$_{1\rightarrow 0}$ data
94: for the entire Galactic plane \citep{dame01}. For that purpose we use a
95: gas-flow model derived from
96: smoothed particle hydrodynamics (SPH) simulations in gravitational
97: potentials based on the NIR luminosity distribution of the bulge and disk
98: \citep{biss03}. Besides providing a more accurate picture of cloud orbits in the inner
99: Galaxy, {a} fundamental advantage of this model is
100: that it provides kinematic resolution toward the Galactic Center, in
101: contrast to standard
102: deconvolution techniques based on purely circular rotation \citep{ns06}.
103: \citet{saw04} used OH-absorption data in comparison with
104: CO emission lines to infer the distribution of molecular gas in the inner few hundred
105: parsecs, and found it strongly influenced by the bar. Our model should incorporate
106: the imprint of the bar over the entire inner Galaxy. {{Therefore,}
107: our result does not suffer from a strong finger-of-god effect
108: like in the classical paper by \cite{oort58}. }
109:
110: {Because any deconvolution will introduce artefacts, we test our
111: procedure on simulated line spectra, which allows us to identify artefacts that are present
112: in the final gas model. We investigate three different gas-flow models for the inner Galaxy, one
113: of which is intentionally distorted so it no longer corresponds to a SPH simulation that has been
114: {adapted} to gas data.}
115:
116: In the Galactic-Center region,
117: for which studies with alternative methods like
118: OH absorption have been performed, we find the gas distribution in
119: our model generally consistent with those earlier results, provided one accounts for the
120: existence of barred gravitational potential. On account of limited resolution both in
121: the gas flow model and the deconvolution the central molecular zone appears somewhat stretched
122: along the line-of-sight, though.
123:
124: \section{The method}
125: \subsection{The CO data}
126: The CO$_{1\rightarrow 0}$ emission line is {the best available} tracer of molecular gas, even
127: though the exact relation between the integrated line intensity and the column density
128: of molecular gas, usually referred to as the X-factor, is known to vary with
129: Galactocentric radius and metallicity \citep{sod95,ari96,oka98,strong04,nakagawa}.
130: The X-factor can be determined at specific locations through the line signal of
131: CO with rare isotopes of either carbon
132: or oxygen using various assumptions for the radiation transport
133: \citep{dick78,dahm98,wall06} or through absorption measurements of H$_2$ and CO in
134: the UV \citep{burgh07}.
135:
136: We use the composite survey of \citet{dame01}, which comprises more than 30 individual
137: surveys of CO$_{1\rightarrow 0}$ emission that together cover the entire Galactic Plane.
138: The data were taken with the CfA 1.2-m telescope and a similar instrument in Chile.
139: The angular resolution is about 1/6 of a degree, and the sampling
140: is slightly better than that with 1/8 of a degree. The velocity sampling is 1.3~km/s
141: and the rms noise is around 0.3~K per channel, but varies slightly over the Galactic
142: Plane. The advantage of this survey lies in its sensitivity, the sampling, and
143: the uniformity.
144:
145: CO surveys have been conducted with significantly higher angular resolution,
146: for example the
147: FCRAO Outer Galaxy Survey \citep{heyer98}, the
148: Massachusetts-Stony Brook Galactic Plane CO Survey \citep{Clemens86}, or the NANTEN
149: Galactic Plane Survey. These surveys either cover only a small part of the sky or are
150: significantly undersampled, thus somewhat compromising their applicability in
151: studies of the large-scale distribution of molecular gas in the Galaxy. Also,
152: considering the {width of the} point-spread function
153: and the photon statistics at high
154: energies, the effective angular resolution of GLAST is not better
155: than that of the CfA survey, and thus CO data of higher angular resolution may not
156: be needed. We have therefore decided to solely use the CfA survey
157: with a sampling of 1/8 of a degree. By applying the appropriate smoothing
158: we have verified, that the publicly
159: available high-resolution surveys are perfectly consistent with the lower-resolution
160: CfA survey, so by using the CfA survey we have not lost any
161: significant information other than the detailed distribution on scales below 1/6 of a degree.
162:
163: \subsection{The Galactic bar}
164: \label{section-bar}
165: While bars were clearly observed in other galaxies, absorption of visible light
166: by dust has for a long time impeded searches for similar structures in our Galaxy.
167: The availability
168: of sensitive infrared detectors in recent decades has finally permitted increasingly
169: accurate studies of the structure of inner Galaxy. Today, the observational evidence
170: for the existence of a Galactic bar is very strong \citep{ger02}, but some uncertainty
171: remains concerning the characteristics of that bar. As an example, using Spitzer data
172: \citet{ben05} find a bar with half-length of $R_{\rm bar}\simeq 4$~kpc
173: (for a GC distance of 8~kpc) at an angle of $\phi\simeq 45^\circ$,
174: whereas the NIR photometry data of \citet{Babu+Gil05} suggest
175: $R_{\rm bar}\simeq 2.5$~kpc and $\phi\simeq 22^\circ$. Using COBE/DIRBE L-band data
176: and giant-star counts \citet{bg02} determine the bar {to be oriented at an angle
177: $\phi\simeq 23^\circ$} with spiral arms emerging at $R=3.5$~kpc.
178:
179: {Based on their earlier analysis of the COBE L-band data \citep{biss97},
180: \citet{engl99} have calculated the resulting gravitational potential and
181: modelled the gas flow for the Milky Way inside the solar circle using
182: smoothed particles hydrodynamics in those potentials. It is worth noting,
183: that this model is non-parametric and has virtually no free parameters, {except} the bar
184: orientation is not tightly constrained by the observations {of
185: NIR-light, the microlensing event rate, the red clump giant distribution, and
186: the} CO kinematics. Later, in a
187: refined analysis, also the spiral arm pattern {was taken} into
188: account \citep{biss03}.}
189: {To select the best fitting models
190: of the gas flow, \citet{biss03} compared simulated longitude-velocity diagrams with the main features
191: of observed CO emission for a certain range in Galactic longitude.}
192:
193: Here we use {the velocity field from} their gas flow models
194: instead of a {simple} circular rotation curve to determine a distance-velocity
195: relation that will allow us to find the location of molecular gas as traced by
196: CO$_{1\rightarrow 0}$ line emission. It is important to note that the non-circular flows
197: imposed by the bar provide kinematic resolution even toward the Galactic Center
198: on account of the radial motion of gas. {We use three different
199: {velocity-field models} in this work. The first is the standard model of
200: \citet{biss03}, which is based on a bar inclination angle $\phi=20^\circ$. As alternative we test
201: a model with $\phi=30^\circ$ that, according to \citet{biss03}, can also reproduce the main features in
202: position-velocity diagrams of CO line data. The third model is the standard model rotated by $20^\circ$, so
203: the bar would make an angle of $\phi=40^\circ$ to the line-of-sight and line-of-sight velocities
204: are no longer in accord with the observed velocities of gas. The purpose of that third model is to show
205: the effect of an ill-fitting gas-flow model, and the deduced gas distribution in the
206: Galaxy should be seriously distorted in this case.}
207:
208: Fig.~\ref{f1} shows the line-of-sight velocity for the standard flow model
209: as a function of distance toward the Galactic Center.
210: For comparison, Fig.~\ref{f2} gives the CO line spectrum for the same line-of-sight.
211: For the bulk of the line signal at velocities around 50~km/s we now find two possible
212: distance solutions, one near 8~kpc and the other one close to 10~kpc.
213: To be noted from Fig.~\ref{f1} is also that for many velocities
214: we find a multitude of possible distances, e.g. eight different solutions near zero
215: velocity for the line-of-sight toward the Galactic Center,
216: not just two as in the case of purely circular rotation.
217: Also, the gas flow model does not {fully cover the observed range of velocities,}
218: as the spectrum
219: in Fig.~\ref{f2} shows a line signal of about 1~K at -150~km/s and of 2~K at 160~km/s,
220: which is far beyond the range of velocities for which distance solutions exist.
221:
222: \begin{figure}
223: \plotone{f1}
224: \caption{The line-of-sight velocity of interstellar gas as a function of distance for
225: the Galactic Center direction, based on the standard gas flow model of \citet{biss03}. The model
226: successfully predicts large radial velocities, but offers a large variety of possible
227: distance solutions near zero velocity.}
228: \label{f1}
229: \end{figure}
230: \begin{figure}
231: \plotone{f2}
232: \caption{The CO$_{1\rightarrow 0}$ line spectrum for the Galactic Center direction as
233: given by the CfA data cube. For most of the line signal distances can be found, but some
234: intensity at forbidden velocities remains.}
235: \label{f2}
236: \end{figure}
237:
238: \subsection{Deconvolution technique}
239: Many quantities are practically expressed in galactocentric cylinder coordinates
240: $(r,\phi,z)$, but transformations are easier to follow in galactocentric Cartesian
241: coordinates $\vec r$.
242: In those coordinates any location is described by a vector
243: $\vec r=(r\,\cos\phi,r\,\sin\phi,z)$, and the sun is located at $\vec r_s =(R_0,0,z_0)$,
244: where \citep[e.g.][]{joshi}
245: \be
246: R_0=8\ {\rm kpc}\qquad\qquad z_0=15\ {\rm pc} \label{e1}
247: \ee
248: Let us write the distance vector $\vec y = \vec r-\vec r_s$ in the form
249: \be
250: \vec y =(-D\,\cos l\,\cos b, -D\,\sin l\,\cos b,D\,\sin b)=
251: (-P\,\cos l,- P\,\sin l,Q)\ \label{e2}
252: \ee
253: where we used heliocentric Galactic coordinates, $D$ is the true distance, and $P$ is the distance
254: as projected on the Galactic plane. For a given CO line spectrum
255: we know the direction in Galactic coordinates $l$,$b$ and can relate
256: $r$ to the line-of-sight velocity. The solution for $P$ then is
257: \ba
258: P&=&R_0\,\cos l + \sqrt{r^2-R_0^2\,\sin^2l}\qquad\qquad r\ge R_0\\
259: P&=&R_0\,\cos l \pm \sqrt{r^2-R_0^2\,\sin^2l}\qquad\qquad r\le R_0
260: \label{e3}
261: \ea
262: where always
263: \be
264: r\ge R_0\,\vert \sin l\vert
265: \ee
266: and also
267: \be
268: D\,\cos b=P\qquad\qquad z=z_0 + P\,\tan b
269: \label{e4}
270: \ee
271: Throughout this paper we assume that the gas flow in the Galaxy is independent of $z$,
272: so the flow pattern known for the mid-plane also applies at any height above the plane.
273: This approximation should not cause much error because molecular gas is usually found close
274: to the mid-plane. {This assumption holds when $|z|<< r$, i.e. it
275: breaks down very close to the {Galactic Center.}}
276:
277: If we had a purely circular gas flow with rotation curve $V(r)$, then
278: the uncorrected radial velocity would be
279: \be
280: V_{\rm LSR}(l,b,P) = \left({{R_0}\over r}\,V(r) -V(R_0)\right)\,\sin l\,\cos b
281: \label{e5}
282: \ee
283: where Eq.~\ref{e3} is used to link the projected distance $P$ to the Galactocentric radius
284: $r$. The proper motion of the sun relative to the local standard of rest
285: has a line-of-sight component of \citep{db98}
286: \be
287: V_{\rm LSR,\odot} = \left(10.\,\cos l\,\cos b + 5.2\,\sin l\,\cos b+7.2\,\sin b\right)
288: \ {\rm km\,s^{-1}}
289: \label{e6}
290: \ee
291: which we can account for by subtracting it from the radial velocity.
292: The corrected, effective velocity then is
293: \be
294: V_{\rm eff} (l,b, P) = V_{\rm LSR} (l,b)-V_{\rm LSR, \odot}
295: \label{e7}
296: \ee
297: We use Eqs.~\ref{e5} and \ref{e7} to estimate the gas velocity for all Galactocentric
298: radii larger than $R_0$, i.e. outside the solar circle, where the gas orbits
299: are assumed circular with constant velocity $V=V_0=210$~km/s. The actual rotation
300: velocity of gas in the outer Galaxy depends somewhat on the
301: choice of $R_0$, the distance to the Galactic Center. A flat rotation curve with $V_0=210$~km/s
302: is a reasonable compromise between faster rotation for larger $R_0$ \citep{levine,mcclure}
303: and slower rotation for small $R_0$ \citep{olling}. Inside the solar circle
304: we need to allow for non-circular rotation and therefore
305: the gas velocities are given by the flow model described in subsection \ref{section-bar}.
306: A linear transition is used to match the gas flow model for the inner and outer Galaxy between
307: 7~kpc and 9~kpc in Galactocentric radius. The flow model of \citet{biss03} also has
308: a few small data holes that are patched by linear interpolation.
309:
310: While the bar model provides kinematic resolution toward the Galactic Center, we still face
311: a lack of resolution in the direction of the anticenter, because purely circular rotation
312: is assumed to apply for $r > R_0$.
313: Therefore the rotation curve is used only for $\vert b\vert \le 5^\circ$ and
314: $\vert l\vert \le 165^\circ$. Towards the anticenter, where the kinematic resolution vanishes,
315: we interpolate the distribution of gas between those derived in 10-degree windows centered on
316: $l=160^\circ$ and $l=200^\circ$ and use that as a probability function according
317: to which the actually measured line signal is distributed.
318: At high latitudes ($\vert b\vert \ge 5^\circ$) the signal is distributed according to the
319: distance distribution derived for $\vert b\vert \le 5^\circ$ as a prior, weighted by a
320: Gaussian of the height above the mid-plane, $z$, for the distance and latitude in question.
321:
322: The final data cube of deconvolved molecular gas will give the gas density in
323: bins of 100~pc length for the line-of-sight distance, {assuming a nominal X-factor
324: $X={2.3\cdot 10^{20}\ \rm mol./cm^2/K/(km\,s^{-1})}$.}
325: The actual deconvolution uses distance
326: bins of 50~pc length, though, and follows an iterative procedure.
327: The internal velocity dispersion of individual gas clouds is determined from the
328: profiles of narrow lines as
329: \be
330: \sigma_{\rm CO}=3\ {\rm km/s}
331: \label{e8}
332: \ee
333: This single-cloud velocity dispersion is small, but still
334: well in the range of those derived in other studies \citep[e.g.][]{malh94}.
335: In the Galactic-Center region the velocity dispersion is expected to be higher than that
336: \citep{dahm98}.
337: Within the central kiloparsec we therefore use
338: \be
339: \sigma_{\rm CO} (r\le 1\ {\rm kpc})=5\ {\rm km/s}
340: \label{e9}
341: \ee
342: The actual deconvolution consists of many steps, each of which is supposed to involve an
343: individual gas cloud or part thereof. For that purpose the
344: CO line spectrum is convolved with a Gaussian with half the velocity
345: dispersion of individual gas clouds. The value and velocity of the peak in
346: the convolved spectrum is determined, which is less influenced by noise
347: than if determined through the raw spectrum. {Tests have shown that
348: the deconvolution tends to break the total line signal into a few blobs on the
349: line-of-sight, if we place the full peak line signal at the distance corresponding
350: to its velocity, so an iterative process is required. Providing both good computational
351: speed and accuracy,} a Gaussian with 20\% of
352: that peak value
353: (or the remaining velocity-integrated intensity, whichever is smaller)
354: and a dispersion as given by Eqs.~\ref{e8} or \ref{e9}, i.e.
355: \be
356: I(v)={{\delta W_{\rm CO}}\over {\sqrt{2\pi}\,\sigma_{\rm CO}}}\,
357: \exp\left[-{{(v-v_0)^2}\over {2\,\sigma_{\rm CO}^2}}\right]\ ,
358: \label{e9b}
359: \ee
360: is subtracted from the original spectrum and the corresponding
361: $\delta W_{\rm CO}$ value is added to the vector that represents the density distribution
362: along the line-of-sight, thus ensuring that negative fluctuations are not propagated to
363: the density distribution. This procedure is repeated until the velocity-integrated
364: intensity in the remaining CO
365: line spectrum is less than a specified value, here $1\ {\rm K\,km\,s^{-1}}$. The
366: line spectrum that remains when the deconvolution has terminated should contain only noise.
367: Figure~\ref{f8} shows for a specific line-of-sight the original CO line spectrum in comparison
368: with the convolved spectrum, that is used to find the true peak velocity, and the remaining line
369: spectrum at the end of the deconvolution. To be noted from the figure is that the
370: remaining spectrum does indeed appear to be essentially noise. In the present case the
371: remaining integrated line signal is $0.94\ {\rm K\,km\,s^{-1}}$. It is possible that some of
372: that remaining signal is true emission, and more sensitive observations of the outer Galaxy
373: have in fact found CO line emission at lower level \citep{nakagawa},
374: but here we have no information as to the velocity (and hence
375: the distance) that this emission should be attributed to.
376: This translates to a systematic uncertainty
377: in the reconstructed column density of molecular gas that can be estimated as
378: \be
379: \Delta N_{H_2} = X\,\Delta W_{\rm CO}\simeq 4\cdot 10^{20}\ {\rm atoms\,cm^{-2}}
380: \label{e9c}
381: \ee
382: for a standard X-factor. Only at high latitude, where the
383: gas column density is low, will this uncertainty have significance compared with uncertainties in
384: the X-factor, limited coverage, or measurement uncertainties. In terms of Galactic diffuse
385: $\gamma$-ray emission
386: above 100~MeV the associated uncertainty is 30\% of the extragalactic diffuse background
387: as measured with EGRET \citep{sree}.
388: \begin{figure}
389: \epsscale{0.95}
390: \plotone{f3}
391: \caption{The CO$_{1\rightarrow 0}$ line spectrum in the direction $l=340^\circ$ and $b=0^\circ$
392: at different stages of the deconvolution. The top panel gives the original spectrum as reported
393: by \citet{dame01}. The middle panel shows that spectrum after convolution with a Gaussian, which we use
394: find the intensity and velocity of the peak emission, assuming true emission lines are significantly
395: broader than the velocity bins of the CO spectrum. The bottom panel displays the remaining spectrum
396: after termination of the deconvolution, which ideally should contain
397: only noise. {The residual spectrum shown in the bottom panel is typical. If the velocity dispersion
398: (Eq.~\ref{e8}) were chosen too large, negative spikes could appear that arise from over-subtraction
399: of line wings.}
400: }
401: \label{f8}
402: \end{figure}
403:
404: In each iteration step we determine
405: the 8 kinematically best-fitting locations using distance bins of 50 pc length
406: to account for the multitude of possible distance solutions.
407: The line signal is distributed among these eight solutions with weights that are
408: determined by three factors: first a Gaussian function in the separation from the midplane,
409: \be
410: w_z= \exp\left(-{{(z-z_c)^2}\over {2\,\sigma_z^2}}\right)\ ,
411: \label{e10}
412: \ee
413: then a Gaussian function with a HWHM of 8.3~kpc in Galactocentric radius to limit
414: the placing of gas at large
415: radii on the far side of the Galaxy, which is often kinematically allowed, but unlikely.
416: The last factors reflects the Jacobian $\vert dv/dD \vert$ that arises from transforming
417: a differential in velocity into a differential in line-of-sight distance, $D$. In that
418: Jacobian we have to account for the binning in both velocity and distance. The
419: data cube of the CO line spectrum provides us with the average intensity per velocity interval
420: $\delta v = 1.3$~km/s. The Jacobian translates this into an associated distance interval
421: $\Delta_v D$, over which the line signal should be distributed,
422: \be
423: \Delta_v D= \bigg\vert {{dv}\over {dD}} \bigg\vert^{-1}\,\delta v\ .
424: \label{e10a}
425: \ee
426: The distance itself is binned with $\delta D=50$~pc. If $\Delta_v D \ge \delta D$,
427: which is the standard case, then
428: the signal must be distributed over neighboring bins, each of which receives a fraction
429: $\delta D/\Delta_v D$ of the total signal. Our accounting for 8 possible distance solutions
430: at each iteration step together with the usually large number of iteration steps
431: ensures that in this case part of the line signal is indeed attributed to
432: the neighboring distance bins. If $\Delta_v D \le \delta D$,
433: then the signal must nevertheless be distributed over the entire distance bin. In total
434: we can define weight factors representing the Jacobian as
435: \be
436: w_J={{\delta v}\over {\delta D}}\,\cdot\,\cases{1\qquad&{\rm for}\ $\Delta_v D \le \delta D$\cr
437: & \cr
438: {{\delta D}\over {\Delta_v D}}&{\rm for}\ $\Delta_v D \ge \delta D$}
439: \label{e10b}
440: \ee
441: Gas with forbidden velocity is placed in the distance bins with the best matching velocity,
442: except toward the inner Galaxy ($\vert l\vert \le 20^\circ$) where for a velocity offset
443: of more than 10~km/s to the nearest allowed velocity
444: we accept only distance bins in the Galactic Center region.
445: Finally the line-of-sight distribution of gas is reduced to a resolution of 100~pc.
446:
447: In Eq.~\ref{e10} we must account for an increase in the thickness of the gas disk with
448: Galactocentric radius. While the variations of $\sigma_z$ appear small within
449: the solar circle \citep{malh94,ns06}, a substantial flaring of the molecular gas disk is
450: observed in the outer Galaxy \citep{wout,bm98}. An analytical approximation to the various
451: results reported in the literature is given by
452: \be
453: \sigma_z=60-50\,{r\over {R_0}}+60\,\left({r\over {R_0}}\right)^2 \ {\rm pc}
454: \label{e11}
455: \ee
456: Warping of the molecular disk appears insignificant within the solar circle
457: \citep{malh94,ns06}, and therefore we neglect it altogether. In the outer regions of the Galaxy
458: the warp in the molecular disk is assumed identical to that of the H$I$ disk and
459: is given in good approximation by \citep{bm98}
460: \be
461: z_c=(1,000\,{\rm pc})\,x\,\sin\phi + (300\,{\rm pc})\,x^2\,(1-\cos(2\,\phi))
462: \label{e12}
463: \ee
464: where
465: \bd
466: x={{r-(11\,{\rm kpc})}\over {6\,{\rm kpc}}}\quad{\rm and}\ r\ge 11\,{\rm kpc}
467: \ed
468: {Finally, to somewhat alleviate the near-far ambiguity toward the inner Galaxy, we first deconvolve
469: the spectra for Galactic latitudes $\vert b\vert \ge 1^\circ$. We then average the
470: deduced gas density in the near region over $0.9375^\circ < \vert b\vert < 1.5625^\circ$
471: and interpolate the result for latitudes $\vert b\vert < 1^\circ$, where they are used
472: as an estimate for the minimum gas density in the near region. This procedure avoids the placing
473: of the signal from nearby gas clouds to large distances, where they would correspond to a substantial
474: surface mass density.}
475:
476: \section{Test on simulated data}
477: {To test the deconvolution procedure and estimate the nature and strength of deconvolution
478: artefacts, we have simulated a CO line data set using} {an artificial}{model gas
479: distribution that consists of a bar and two spiral arms as shown in the top panel of
480: figure \ref{f9}. One should note that the simulated line data set is
481: based on the same gas flow model and intrinsic line widths that are used during the deconvolution, so
482: this test will not show artefacts that arise from imperfections of the flow model. Its main purpose is
483: to identify the noise level and those characteristics in the final deconvolved gas distribution that are
484: likely not real, {{as for example caused by distance ambiguities or}
485: {\em velocity-crowding}, i.e. small $|V/dD|$, where the inversion of the distance-velocity
486: relation is uncertain}.
487: \begin{figure}
488: \epsscale{0.5}
489: \plotone{f4}
490: \caption{(Top panel) The surface mass density in M$_\odot$/pc$^2$ for the simulated gas
491: distribution, for which we have calculated hypothetical gas line data.
492: The dashed white lines illustrate the location of the Galactic bar and
493: two possible logarithmic spiral arms, that would correspond to the Sagittarius arm
494: and the Norma/Perseus +l arm. White areas have a surface mass density below
495: the lower limit of the colorbar. (Bottom panel) The reconstructed surface mass density
496: reproduces the bar and the spiral arms with three major types of artefacts, labeled with the letters
497: {\bf X}, {\bf O}, and {\bf W}.}
498: \label{f9}
499: \end{figure}
500: The bottom panel of figure \ref{f9} shows the reconstructed surface mass density. To be noted
501: from the figure are three major types of artefacts that we will see again in the deconvolutions of the
502: real data set. In the regions indicated by the letter {\bf O}, in the anticenter
503: and outside the solar circle on the far side of the Galaxy, the kinematic resolution is poor or
504: nonexistent, and the deconvolution tends to break up the arms into three quasi-parallel structures.
505: The region labelled {\bf W} at large negative $x$ has no kinematic resolution, but receives some signal
506: at zero velocity, which appears here as a tail on the far side of the Galaxy. The signal in the regions
507: marked with the letter {\bf X} corresponds to the far {distance} solution of gas in the
508: spiral arm that passes the sun at about 1 kpc distance. A detailed inspection shows that the
509: very high reconstructed surface mass density in the region at $(x,y)=(-8.,5.)$ arises from
510: an unusually wide z-distribution. Signal in the wing of the line profile of the highest possible
511: velocity near the sun has a velocity, for which only a far solution exists. The deconvolution code
512: cannot perfectly separate shift on account of the intrinsic line width from shift arising from the
513: Galactic gas flow, so a fraction of the signal is attributed to the far solution, which is about 20 times
514: as distant as the near solution, and so the misplaced signal corresponds to a substantial surface
515: mass density, even though it is inconspicuous in the distribution {in distance of the}
516: gas density.}
517:
518: \begin{figure}
519: \epsscale{0.8}
520: \plotone{f5}
521: \caption{The deconvolved integrated CO line intensity per distance bin of 100 pc for the
522: Galactic Center direction (top panel) and at 20 degrees positive longitude (bottom). Note the
523: difference in scale.}
524: \label{f3}
525: \end{figure}
526: \section{Results}
527: \subsection{The standard gas-flow model}
528: Figure \ref{f3} shows the deconvolved gas distribution
529: (more precisely the integrated line intensity, $W_{\rm CO}$, per distance bin of 100 pc),
530: for two lines-of-sight, based on the standard gas-flow model {with
531: bar inclination angle $\phi=20^\circ$}.
532: The top panel refers to the direction of the Galactic Center and can therefore
533: be directly compared with Figures~\ref{f1} and \ref{f2}, which show the velocity-distance
534: relation and the CO line spectrum for that line-of-sight. Even though in the
535: $W_{\rm CO}$ distribution we see a strong narrow peak near the Galactic Center at 8~kpc distance,
536: a similar fraction of the line signal is in fact placed between about 9 and 10~kpc distance.
537: This corresponds to intensity at 50--100~km/s velocity, for which two distance solutions
538: exist with significantly different $\vert dv/dD\vert$. The two solutions are equivalent
539: in terms of the other weight factors, so they receive the same intensity in total, which
540: in the case of the larger distance is spread out over about ten distance bins.
541:
542: \begin{figure}
543: \plotone{f6}
544: \caption{The surface mass density of the Galaxy in M$_\odot$/pc$^2$ assuming
545: a constant conversion factor
546: $X=2.3\cdot 10^{20}\ {\rm molecules/cm^3/(K\,km\,s^{-1})}$. The dotted white
547: circle outlines the location of artefacts arising from forbidden velocities.
548: The dashed white lines illustrate the location of the Galactic bar and
549: two possible logarithmic spiral arms, that would correspond to the Sagittarius arm
550: and the Norma/Perseus +l arm. The data are smoothed to about 200~pc resolution
551: to better show the large-scale structure. White areas have a surface mass density below
552: the lower limit of the colorbar.}
553: \label{f4}
554: \end{figure}
555:
556: Figure~\ref{f4} shows the reconstructed surface mass density of molecular gas
557: for {the standard gas-flow model and}
558: a constant conversion factor $X=2.3\cdot 10^{20}\ {\rm molecules/cm^3/(K\,km\,s^{-1})}$
559: smoothed to about 200~pc resolution. The location of the sun is
560: $x=8\,{\rm kpc}$ and $y=0$. {The artefact labelled {\bf W} in figure \ref{f9} is
561: prominent here as well:} The patches of relatively high surface mass density at large
562: Galactocentric radii on the
563: far side of the Galaxy (at $x\lesssim -10$~kpc) originate from line signal near
564: zero velocity, for which those large distances are a valid kinematic solution. In some cases
565: the line intensity at small velocities is so high, that signal corresponding to a few
566: M$_\odot$/pc$^2$ survives the filtering with the Gaussian prior
567: that we use to reduce the weights for these solutions.
568:
569: Also visible in figure~\ref{f4} are artefacts arising from
570: gas at forbidden velocities in the inner Galaxy.
571: Gas at forbidden velocities is placed where the corresponding extremum in the line-of-sight
572: velocity is found. For circular rotation with constant speed the location of that extremum
573: {would} delineate a circle of radius $R_0/2$ that extends from the sun to the Galactic Center
574: and is indicated by the dotted white line. One can clearly
575: see patches of high surface mass density that roughly follow the dotted line.
576: While it should be expected that the gas resides near the location of the peak in the
577: line-of-sight velocity, the spatial concentration of the gas is most likely exaggerated.
578: {The fact that a substantial fraction of the total CO line signal is placed near the dotted white
579: line indicates that the gas flow model underestimates the flow
580: velocities in the inner Galaxy.}
581: {Note, that this kind of artefact is not seen in test
582: simulation presented in the previous section.}
583:
584: One clearly sees a mass concentration along the Galactic bar
585: where the surface mass density is often two orders of magnitude higher than at similar
586: Galactocentric radii on the sides of the bar. Two spiral arms seem to emerge at the ends
587: of the bar. The distribution of molecular gas supports the notion that those two spiral arms
588: have a small pitch angle.
589: The dashed white line indicates the location of the
590: Galactic bar according to \citet{biss03} and, for illustration, two logarithmic
591: spiral arms with pitch angle $11.5^\circ$, that emanate from the ends of the bar
592: at $R=3.5$~kpc. On the near side this would be the Norma arm that circles around the
593: Galactic Center and reappears as the Perseus +l arm in the notation of \citet{vallee}.
594: Emerging on the far side and closely passing by the sun would be the Sagittarius arm.
595: To be noted from the figure is that the distribution of molecular mass is roughly
596: consistent with those two arms. There is excess molecular material that one may associate with
597: two other arms, for example the gas near $x=5$~kpc and $Y=0$~kpc would mark the Scutum arm.
598: The gas between the sun and the outer Perseus +l arm would lie in the Perseus arm. While
599: certain structures in the map can be associated with those arms as discussed in the literature,
600: {it is not a priori clear that those structures are real. A comparison with the
601: deconvolved mass distribution for the simulated data set in Fig.~\ref{f9} shows that the excess material
602: coincides with two artefacts marked by an {\bf X} at $(x,y)=(-2,3)$~kpc and at $(x,y)=(-2,-7)$~kpc,
603: that correspond to the far solution of the nearby Norma arm and
604: Sagittarius arm, respectively. On the other hand, the gas distribution in the SPH simulation
605: of \citet{biss03} does not simply follow the logarithmic spiral arms, in particular not within the
606: inner few kpc. While the signal at $(x,y)=(-2,-7)$~kpc is close to the boundary of the SPH
607: simulation region, {thus hindering a fair assessment of their relevance,}
608: the structure near $(x,y)=(-2,3)$~kpc
609: has a clear counterpart in the gas distribution according to the gas model of \citet{biss03}.
610: }
611:
612: \begin{figure}
613: \plotone{f7}
614: \caption{The surface mass distribution in the inner 10~kpc $\times$ 10~kpc of the
615: Galaxy in full resolution. As before the units are
616: M$_\odot$/pc$^2$ assuming a constant conversion factor
617: $X=2.3\cdot 10^{20}\ {\rm molecules/cm^3/(K\,km\,s^{-1})}$. White areas have a surface mass density below
618: the lower limit of the colorbar.}
619: \label{f5}
620: \end{figure}
621:
622: \begin{figure}
623: \plotone{f8}
624: \caption{Blow-up of the inner 2~kpc $\times$ 2~kpc of Figure~\ref{f5}. The diamond marks the
625: position of the Galactic Center. The solid circle outline the massive cold torus structured inferred by
626: \citet{laun}. The dotted lines indicate the central molecular zone according to the
627: model of \citet{ferriere}. The inner ellipse
628: corresponds to the peak in surface mass density, and the outer ellipse outline the perimeter where
629: the density has fallen to $1/e$ of the peak value. White areas have a surface mass density below
630: the lower limit of the colorbar.}
631: \label{f6}
632: \end{figure}
633:
634: Figure~\ref{f5} shows the surface-mass distribution within 5~kpc from the Galactic Center
635: with standard resolution of 100~pc. As before the dashed lines indicate the bar and two
636: logarithmic spiral arms, whereas the dotted lines outlines the circle on which gas at
637: forbidden velocity may be projected.
638: Many of the structures shown in Figs.~\ref{f4} and \ref{f5} do not appear as clean and narrow
639: as those in the SPH simulations of \citet{biss03}, but the fact that the most salient features
640: can be recovered lends credibility to their existence in the Galaxy. {
641: Particularly interesting are the pseudo-arms that emerge from the bar at about 2~kpc
642: from the Galactic Center. Our deconvolution shows similar structures at $(x,y)=(2,0)$~kpc
643: and $(x,y)=(2,0)$~kpc, although a significant fraction of the latter is clearly gas at the
644: Galactic Center that is misplaced at the far solution (compare Fig.~\ref{f1}).}
645:
646: Within 1 kpc from the Galactic Center the model velocities are affected by the limited
647: resolution of the SPH simulation. One may therefore not expect the gas distribution to be well reproduced.
648: Figure~\ref{f6} shows the reconstructed distribution of molecular gas within 1 kpc of
649: the Galactic Center. To be noted from the figure is the concentration of molecular gas
650: in three segments that may be interpreted as fragments
651: of an elongated ring that is somewhat off-center, shifted toward positive longitudes
652: (negative $y$). The overall geometry resembles
653: the expanding molecular ring proposed much earlier by \citet{scov72}, but stretched
654: along the line-of-sight. {Fig.~\ref{f6} should be interpreted very carefully,}
655: {because the limited resolution of the gas flow model has a
656: significant impact on the reconstructed gas distribution. In fact we find that it depends on how
657: one interpolates the gas velocity between the grid points at which the average flow
658: velocity is computed in the SPH simulation. For comparison we indicate the location of the
659: massive cold torus found by \citet{laun} using IRAS and COBE/CIRBE data by the
660: solid white line.
661: We can further} compare our results with those of
662: \citet{saw04} who used only observational data (emission vs. absorption) and no kinematic tracing.
663: They find an center-filled ellipsoidal configuration with large inclination angle to the line-of-sight.
664: The peak in surface density appears at $x\approx -0.03$~kpc and $y\approx -0.15$~kpc
665: (our coordinate system) and may be identified
666: with Sgr B and what they denote the 1.3$^\circ$ region. In contrast, we find the peak in mass density
667: clearly behind the Galactic Center at $x\approx -0.3$~kpc, and the gas distribution is
668: closer to a ring or two arms as suggested by \citet{sofue}.
669: \citet{ferriere} have proposed a model of the central molecular zone that
670: appears to be a compromise between the various configurations discussed in the literature. The
671: overall appearance of the central molecular zone is that of an ellipse with a slight reduction of
672: the density toward the center, which is indicated in figure~\ref{f6} by dotted lines. The inner ellipse
673: corresponds to the peak in surface mass density, and the outer ellipse outline the perimeter where
674: the density has fallen to $1/e$ of the peak value. The major axis of the ellipse is nearly perpendicular
675: to the line-of-sight, whereas in our model it is significantly stretched along the line-of-sight, probably
676: as a result of the limited resolution of the gas flow model. We find no counterpart to the
677: kpc-scale Galactic Bulge disk in the model of \citet{ferriere}, in fact our reconstructed surface
678: mass densities to the sides of the bar are very much lower than in her model, if
679: one accounts for a small X-factor in the Galactic Center region.
680: Both in the SPH simulation of \citet{biss03} and in our surface density
681: maps one sees a concentration of gas along the bar and large voids to the side,
682: which are intersected by pseudo-arms.
683:
684: \subsection{Alternative gas-flow models}
685: {The gas-flow models are not perfect, for example they may not match both the observed
686: terminal-velocity curve (TVC) in the inner Galaxy and the orbit velocity at the solar radius to better
687: than 5\%.
688: To investigate the impact of the particular choice of
689: the gas-flow model on the reconstructed gas distribution, we
690: here show deconvolutions based on two alternative models. The first is also derived from
691: a SPH simulation of \citet{biss03}, but in this case the bar is assumed to be inclined
692: at $\phi=30^\circ$. This model should reproduce the terminal velocity curve in the longitude range
693: $10^\circ \le l\le 60^\circ$, and thus be qualitatively similar to the standard model, except the bar
694: parameters are different {and the overall fit of the model to the
695: lv-diagram is slightly {worse} but still in agreement with observations.} Figure~\ref{f10} shows
696: the reconstructed surface mass density for this
697: alternative gas-flow model. To be noted from the figure are the large voids at Galactocentric radii
698: $R=(7-8)$~kpc, whereas the mass density in the inner 6~kpc is more homogeneous than for the
699: standard model. Figure~\ref{f10} clearly shows an increased amount of material in
700: artefacts along the dotted circle, which indicates that the standard
701: model is more in agreement with the observed gas flow, as expected.
702:
703: \begin{figure}
704: \plotone{f9}
705: \caption{The surface mass density in M$_\odot$/pc$^2$ for the alternative gas-flow model
706: with bar inclination $\phi=30^\circ$. The dashed line indicating the location of the bar and
707: two logarithmic spiral arms is plotted accordingly. White areas have a surface mass density below
708: the lower limit of the colorbar.}
709: \label{f10}
710: \end{figure}
711:
712: Whereas the first alternative gas-flow model should still be a fair approximation of the actual
713: velocity distribution in the inner Galaxy, we now} {also} {use a model that is
714: intentionally distorted
715: to no longer reproduce the TVC in the inner Galaxy. For that purpose we rotate the standard gas-flow
716: model by another $20^\circ$, so that the bar inclination is $\phi=40^\circ$. As shown in Fig.~\ref{f11},
717: the resultant gas distribution is significantly {changed.}}
718: {There is a large void between the sun and
719: the Galactic Center at about $(x,y)=(5,-1)$~kpc, where the line-of-sight velocity in the flow model
720: no longer matches any signal in the CO line. A second large void appear in the lower left of the plot,
721: corresponding to a Galactic longitude $l\approx 30^\circ$ and distances around 15~kpc. A relatively
722: high surface mass density is found on the far side of the Galaxy at 7~kpc Galactocentric
723: radius which is most likely misplaced line signal from the Galactic Center region.}
724:
725: \begin{figure}
726: \plotone{f10}
727: \caption{The surface mass density in M$_\odot$/pc$^2$ for the standard gas-flow model
728: rotated by another $20^\circ$, so that the bar inclination is $\phi=40^\circ$.
729: This gas-flow that is intentionally distorted
730: to no longer reproduce the actual
731: velocity distribution in the inner Galaxy.}
732: \label{f11}
733: \end{figure}
734:
735: \section{Summary}
736: We have derived a new model of the distribution of molecular gas in the Galaxy based on
737: CO line emission \citep{dame01}. For that purpose we use a gas-flow model derived from
738: smoothed particle hydrodynamics (SPH) simulations in gravitational
739: potentials based on the NIR luminosity distribution of the bulge and disk
740: \citep{biss03}. Besides providing a more accurate picture of cloud orbits in the inner
741: Galaxy, {a} fundamental advantage of this model is
742: that it provides kinematic resolution toward the Galactic Center, in
743: contrast to standard deconvolution techniques based on purely circular rotation.
744:
745: {To test the deconvolution procedure and estimate the nature and strength of deconvolution
746: artefacts, we have applied it to a simulated CO line data set
747: based on a model gas distribution that consists of a bar
748: and two spiral arms. We have also deconvolved the actual observed CO data using alternative
749: gas-flow models, one of which is intentionally distorted to no longer reproduce the actual
750: velocity distribution in the inner Galaxy. The reconstructed distribution of surface mass density
751: is significantly affected in the case of the ill-fitting gas-flow model. When using gas-flow models
752: that reproduce the terminal-velocity curve, but are based on different bar inclination angles, the
753: reconstructed gas distribution are much {more alike.}} {In particular, the deconvolution
754: is robust against a simple rescaling of the gas-flow velocities by a few percent.}
755: {A comparison of the surface mass
756: density determined using feasible and unfeasible gas flow models shows that in the latter
757: case the resulting surface mass density is also unfeasible. {Examples of that are}
758: the very low surface mass density
759: regions around $(x,y) = (5,-1)\,$kpc and $(x,y)=(-8,-8)\,$kpc, and the strong feature at
760: $(x,y)=(-7,-1)\,$kpc in Figure~\ref{f11}.
761: Hence, the comparison of the surface mass densities from the various gas flow models
762: strongly indicates that the result of the deconvolution algorithm is robust against
763: moderate variations in the underlying gas flow model. On the other hand, it is sensitive enough
764: to changes in the gas flow model to discriminate the surface mass density solutions
765: based on feasible gas-flow models against those based on unfeasible flow} models.
766:
767: {We now describe our model for the surface mass density of the gas in more detail.
768: In the model} we find a concentration of mass along the Galactic bar
769: where the surface mass density is often two orders of magnitude higher than at similar
770: Galactocentric radii of the sides of the bar. Two spiral arms seem to emerge at the ends
771: of the bar, which have a small pitch angle $\sim 12^\circ$. While
772: certain structures in the surface density distribution may be associated with two more spiral arms
773: as discussed in the literature \citep{vallee}, the evidence for those arms provided by this
774: deconvolution is not strong, and localizing spiral arms based on kinematics and CO line data
775: alone is difficult. We also reproduce a concentration of molecular gas
776: in the shape of an elongated ring around the Galactic Center that resembles the
777: massive cold torus found by \citet{laun}, but is broken up
778: and somewhat stretched along the line-of-sight, probably
779: as a result of the limited resolution of the gas flow model.
780:
781:
782: Models of the three-dimensional distribution of molecular gas in the
783: Milky Way Galaxy can be used in many applications, for example to analyze
784: the diffuse Galactic gamma-ray emission that will be observed with
785: GLAST. Knowledge of the gas distribution is essential for studies of the cosmic-ray
786: gradient in the Galaxy, but also for investigation of small-scale variations
787: in the density and flux of cosmic rays. Our gas model will be publicly available at
788: {\it http://cherenkov.physics.iastate.edu/gas}.
789:
790: \acknowledgments
791: Support by NASA grant NAG5-13559 is gratefully acknowledged.
792:
793: \begin{thebibliography}{}
794:
795: \bibitem[Arimoto et al.(1996)]{ari96}
796: Arimoto, N., Sofue, Y., Tsujimoto, T., 1996, PASJ, 48, 275
797:
798: \bibitem[Babusiaux \& Gilmore(2005)]{Babu+Gil05}
799: Babusiaux, C., and Gilmore, G., 2005, MNRAS, 358, 1309
800:
801: \bibitem[Benjamin et al.(2005)]{ben05}
802: Benjamin, R.A., et al., 2005, \apj, 630, L149
803:
804: \bibitem[Bertsch et al.(1993)]{ber93}
805: Bertsch, D.L., et al., 1993, \apj, 416, 587
806:
807: \bibitem[Binney \& Merrifield(1998)]{bm98}
808: Binney, J., Merrifield, M., 1998, {\it Galactic Astronomy}, Princeton University Press,
809: Princeton, New Jersey
810:
811: \bibitem[Bissantz et al.(1997)]{biss97}
812: Bissantz, N., Englmaier, P., Binney, J., Gerhard O., 1997, \mnras,
813: 289, 651
814:
815: \bibitem[Bissantz et al.(2003)]{biss03}
816: Bissantz, N., Englmaier, P., and Gerhard, O., 2003, MNRAS, 340, 949
817:
818: \bibitem[Bissantz \& Gerhard(2002)]{bg02}
819: Bissantz, N., Gerhard, O., 2002, MNRAS, 330, 591
820:
821: \bibitem[Burgh et al.(2007)]{burgh07}
822: Burgh, E.B., France, K., McCandliss, S.R., 2007, \apj, 658, 446
823:
824: \bibitem[Clemens et al.(1986)]{Clemens86}
825: Clemens, D.P., Sanders, D.B., Scoville, N.Z., Solomon, P.M., 1986, ApJS 60, 297
826:
827: \bibitem[Dahmen et al.(1998)]{dahm98}
828: Dahmen, G., H\"uttemeister, S., Wilson, T.L., Mauersberger, R., \aap, 331, 959
829:
830: \bibitem[Dame et al.(2001)]{dame01}
831: Dame, T.M., Hartmann, D., and Thaddeus, P., 2001, ApJ, 547, 792
832:
833: \bibitem[Dehnen \& Binney(1998)]{db98}
834: Dehnen, W., Binney, J.J., 1998, MNRAS, 298, 387
835:
836: \bibitem[Dickman(1978)]{dick78}
837: Dickman, R.L., 1978, ApJS, 37, 407
838:
839: \bibitem[Englmaier \& Gerhard (1999)]{engl99}
840: Englmaier, P., Gerhard, O., 1999, \mnras, 304, 512
841:
842: \bibitem[Ferri\`ere et al.(2007)]{ferriere}
843: Ferri\`ere, K., Gillard, W., and Jean, P., 2007, \aap, 467, 611
844:
845: \bibitem[Gerhard(2001)]{ger02}
846: Gerhard, O., 2001, in {\it Galaxy disks and disk galaxies}, ASP Conf. Ser. Vol. 230,
847: eds. Funes \& Corsini, p.21
848:
849: \bibitem[Heyer et al.(1998)]{heyer98}
850: Heyer, M.H., et al., 1998, ApJS, 115, 241
851:
852: \bibitem[Hunter et al.(1997)]{hu97}
853: Hunter, S.D., et al., 1997, \apj, 481, 205
854:
855: \bibitem[Joshi(2007)]{joshi}
856: Joshi, Y.C., 2007, MNRAS, 378, 768
857:
858: \bibitem[Launhardt et al.(2002)]{laun}
859: Launhardt, R., Zylka, R., Mezger, P.G., 2002,
860: \aap, 384, 112
861:
862: \bibitem[Levine et al.(2006)]{levine}
863: Levine, E.S., Blitz, L., Heiles, C., 2006, \apj, 643, 881
864:
865: \bibitem[Malhotra(1994)]{malh94}
866: Malhotra, S., 1994, \apj, 433, 687
867:
868: \bibitem[McClure-Griffiths \& Dickey(2007)]{mcclure}
869: McClure-Griffiths, N.M., Dickey, J.M., 2007, \apj, 671, 427
870:
871: \bibitem[Nakagawa et al.(2007)]{nakagawa}
872: Nakagawa, M., Onishi, T., Mizuno, A., Fukui, Y., 2005, \pasj, 57, 917
873:
874: \bibitem[Nakanishi \& Sofue(2006)]{ns06}
875: Nakanishi, H., Sofue, Y., 2006, PASJ, 58, 847
876:
877: \bibitem[Oka et al.(1998)]{oka98}
878: Oka, T., et al., 1998, \apj, 498, 730
879:
880: \bibitem[Olling \& Merrifield(1998)]{olling}
881: Olling, R.P., Merrifield, M.R., 1998, \mnras, 297, 943
882:
883: \bibitem[Oort et al.(1958)]{oort58}
884: Oort, J.H., Kerr, F.T., Westerhound, G., 1958, \mnras, 118, 379
885:
886: \bibitem[Pohl \& Esposito(1998)]{pe98}
887: Pohl, M., Esposito, J.A., 1998, \apj, 507, 327
888:
889: \bibitem[Sawada et al.(2004)]{saw04}
890: Sawada, T., Hasegawa, T., Handa, T., Cohen, R.J., 2004, MNRAS, 349, 1167
891:
892: \bibitem[Scoville(1972)]{scov72}
893: Scoville, N.Z., 1972, \apj, 175, L127
894:
895: \bibitem[Sodroski et al.(1995)]{sod95}
896: Sodroski, T.J., Odegard, N., Dwek, E., et al., 1995, \apj, 452, 262
897:
898: \bibitem[Sofue(1995)]{sofue}
899: Sofue, Y., 1995, \pasj, 47, 527
900:
901: \bibitem[Sreekumar et al.(1998)]{sree}
902: Sreekumar, P., et al., 1998, \apj, 494, 523
903:
904: \bibitem[Strong et al.(2004)]{strong04}
905: Strong, A.W., Moskalenko, I.V., Reimer, O., et al., 2004, \aap, 422, L47
906:
907: \bibitem[Vall\'ee(2002)]{vallee}
908: Vall\'ee, J.P., 2002, \apj, 566, 261
909:
910: \bibitem[Wall(2006)]{wall06}
911: Wall, W.F., 2006, RMAA, 42, 117, (see also astro-ph/0610209)
912:
913: \bibitem[Wouterloot et al.(1990)]{wout}
914: Wouterloot, J.G.A., Brand, J., Burton, W.B., Kwee, K.K., 1990, \aap, 230, 21
915:
916: \end{thebibliography}
917:
918:
919: \end{document}
920:
921: