1: \chapter{Analysis techniques}

2: \label{ch:analysis}

3: 

4: \section{Phasing the data}

5: 

6: Before any of the following analyses can proceed, the data must first

7: be phased, that is, the {\em  x\/}-axis must be converted from units

8: of time to units that express at what point the star is in its

9: orbit. The orbital phase usually runs from 0 to 1 over an orbital

10: cycle (numbers greater than 1 indicate subsequent cycles). Phase zero

11: is usually defined, and I follow this convention, as the mid-point of

12: the white dwarf eclipse. For a symmetrical white dwarf eclipse,

13: implying a symmetrical light distribution over the white dwarf, this

14: is equivalent to the superior conjunction of the white dwarf. Some

15: authors define phase zero as the point of minimum light, which in

16: systems with asymmetric disc emission (e.g.\ from the bright spot) can

17: lead to a systematic disagreement of a few seconds with the definition

18: I have adopted.

19: 

20: The times of white dwarf mid-ingress $T_{\rm{wi}}$ and mid-egress

21: $T_{\rm{we}}$ were determined by locating the times when the minimum

22: and maximum values, respectively, of the light curve derivative

23: occurred (see \S~\ref{sec:derivative}), using the techniques

24: described by \citet{wood85,wood86b,wood89a}. A

25: median filter was used to smooth the data, the derivative of which was

26: then calculated numerically (a median filter preserves the shape of

27: the original light curve better than a box-car, or running mean,

28: filter). A box-car filter (which reduces the noise more than a median

29: filter would) was applied to this derivative, and simple searches were

30: made to locate the minimum and maximum values of the derivative

31: corresponding to the midpoints of ingress $T_{\rm{wi}}$ and egress

32: $T_{\rm{we}}$. (In fact this method locates the steepest part of the

33: ingress and egress, but one would expect these to correspond to the

34: midpoints unless the light distribution of the white dwarf is

35: asymmetrical.) If a bright spot eclipse is also present, the ingress

36: and egress times of the white dwarf must be visually inspected to

37: ensure that they are not confused with those of the bright spot. The

38: times of mid-eclipse were then determined by assuming the white dwarf

39: eclipse to be symmetric around phase zero and taking

40: $T_{\rm{mid}}=(T_{\rm{we}}+T_{\rm{wi}})/2$. This technique locates the

41: time of mid-eclipse to an accuracy comparable to the time-resolution

42: of the data.

43: 

44: The orbital ephemeris was then determined from all available

45: mid-eclipse times and cycle numbers for each target by a linear

46: least-squares fit. The errors adopted for the times of mid-eclipse

47: taken from the literature, where not explicitly stated, were estimated

48: from the number of significant figures quoted or the time-resolution

49: of the data, whichever gave the larger error. The resulting orbital

50: ephemerides are of the form

51: \begin{equation}

52: HJD = HJD_{0} + P_{\rm{orb}} E,

53: \end{equation}

54: where $E$ is the cycle number and $HJD$ and $HJD_{0}$ are the

55: heliocentric Julian date of the midpoint of the eclipse of cycles $E$

56: and 0. All HJD times quoted, throughout this thesis, are co-ordinated

57: universal time, UTC, corrected to the heliocentre (i.e.\ not

58: barycentric dynamical time, TDB).

59: 

60: \section{Derivative method}

61: \label{sec:derivative}

62: 

63: This method of determining the system parameters of an eclipsing dwarf

64: nova was originally developed by \citet{wood86b}. It relies upon the

65: fact that there is a unique relationship between the mass ratio

66: $q=M_{2}/M_{1}$ and orbital inclination $i$ for a

67: given eclipse phase width $\Delta\phi$ \citep{bailey79}, as discussed

68: in \S~\ref{sec:radmass} and \S~\ref{sec:phomass}.

69: 

70: The first requirement of this technique is accurate timings of the

71: white dwarf and bright spot eclipse contact phases. Here and hereafter

72: the midpoints of ingress and egress are denoted by $\phi_{\rm{i}}$

73: and $\phi_{\rm{e}}$, respectively, the eclipse contact phases

74: corresponding to the start and end of the ingress by

75: $\phi_{1}$ and $\phi_{2}$ and the start and end of the egress by

76: $\phi_{3}$ and $\phi_{4}$. In the discussion that follows I use the

77: suffixes `$\rm{w}$' and `$\rm{b}$' to denote the white dwarf and

78: bright spot contact phases, respectively (e.g.\ $\phi_{\rm{wi}}$

79: means the midpoint of the white dwarf ingress). The midpoints of the

80: eclipse ingresses and egresses were determined as described in the

81: previous section, with the sole change being that the data is now

82: phased. The eclipse contact phases $\phi_{1}$\ldots$\phi_{4}$ were

83: determined by locating the points

84: where the derivative differs significantly from a spline fit to the

85: more slowly varying component (for instance, a disc eclipse or the

86: orbital hump). Throughout this thesis, the eclipse phase width quoted

87: is the full-width at half-maximum, given by

88: \begin{equation}

89: \label{eq:phasewidth}

90: \Delta \phi = \phi_{\rm{we}}-\phi_{\rm{wi}}.

91: \end{equation}

92: 

93: The trajectory of the gas stream originating from the inner Lagrangian

94: point ${\rm L}_{1}$ is calculated by solving the equations of motion

95: (equations~\ref{eq:xacceleration} and \ref{eq:yacceleration}) using a

96: second-order Runge--Kutta technique and conserving the Jacobi Energy

97: (equation~\ref{eq:jacobi}) to 1 part in $10^{4}$. This assumes that

98: the gas stream follows a ballistic path. As $q$ decreases, the path of

99: the stream moves away from the white dwarf. For a given mass ratio $q$

100: each point on the stream has a unique phase of ingress and egress. The

101: eclipse (or not) of a point in the system by the secondary star was

102: determined using {\sc blink}, a Fortran subroutine written by Keith

103: Horne and Tom Marsh. {\sc Blink} tests for occultation by the

104: secondary star of a given location in the co-rotating binary system at

105: a given phase using the procedure described by \citet{horne85}.

106: 

107: For each phase, the limb of the secondary forms an arc when projected

108: along the line of sight onto a given plane (hereafter referred to as a

109: phase arc): each point on an individual phase arc is eclipsed at the

110: same time (see figure~\ref{fig:phasearc}). The intersection of the

111: phase arcs corresponding to the

112: respective eclipse contact phases can be used to constrain the size of

113: the white dwarf and the structure of the bright spot. The light

114: centres of the white dwarf and bright spot must lie at the

115: intersection of the phase arcs corresponding to the relevant phases of

116: mid-ingress and mid-egress, $\phi_{\rm{i}}$ and $\phi_{\rm{e}}$. The

117: phase arcs were calculated using full Roche lobe geometry rather than

118: an approximate calculation, using the {\sc blink} subroutine.

119: 

120: \begin{figure}

121: \centerline{\includegraphics[width=12cm,angle=0]{figures/Phasearc.jpg}}

122: \caption[Phase arcs at different orbital phases.]{At each phase, when

123: projected along the line of sight onto

124: a given plane (here, and usually, the orbital plane) the limb of the

125: secondary star forms an arc. Each point along such a `phase arc' is

126: eclipsed at the same moment. The figure shows various phase arcs at

127: different orbital phases for $q=0.9$ and $\Delta\phi=0.081$. The axes

128: are in units of the ${\rm L}_{1}$ distance. with the white dwarf at

129: the origin. Figure from \citet{horne85}.}

130: \label{fig:phasearc}

131: \end{figure}

132: 

133: As previously discussed in \S~\ref{sec:phomass}, the mass ratio---and

134: hence the inclination---may be determined by comparing the bright

135: spot light centres corresponding to the measured eclipse contact

136: phases $\phi_{\rm{wi}}$ and $\phi_{\rm{we}}$ with the theoretical

137: stream trajectories for different mass ratios $q$. This requires the

138: assumption that the gas stream passes directly through the light

139: centre of the bright spot. I constrain the light centre of the bright

140: spot to be the point where the gas stream and outer edge of the disc

141: intersect, so that the distance from the primary at which the gas

142: stream passes through the light centre of the bright spot gives the

143: outer disc radius $R_{\rm{d}}/a$. For data covering multiple eclipses,

144: the uncertainties on these parameters may be determined from the

145: root mean square (rms) variations of the measured contact phases.

146: 

147: \begin{figure}

148: \centerline{\includegraphics[width=12cm,angle=0]{figures/wood86bs.jpg}}

149: \caption[The horizontal and vertical structure of the bright spot

150:   of Z~Cha and the definition of $A_{jk}$ and $Z_{jk}$.]{The

151:   horizontal and vertical structure of the bright spot

152:   of Z~Cha for $q=0.1495$. The top panel (a) shows the region on the

153:   orbital $(x,y)$ plane on which the bright spot lies. The light

154:   centre of the bright spot {\em LC\/} is shown surrounded by a solid

155:   box corresponding to the rms variations in the phases of mid-ingress

156:   $\phi_{\rm bi}$ and mid-egress $\phi_{\rm be}$. Surrounding this is

157:   the solid box corresponding to the eclipse contact phases

158:   $\phi_{{\rm b}j}\ldots\phi_{{\rm b}k}$ (the vertices of which define

159:   $A_{jk}$) and their rms variations (dotted boxes). The accretion

160:   disc of radius $R_{\rm d}/a=0.334$ is also plotted, as is the stream

161:   trajectory. Panel (b) is

162:   similar, differing in that it shows the projection of the phase arcs

163:   onto the vertical cylinder of radius equal to that of the disc,

164:   $0.334a$, i.e.\ in the plane $(R\theta,z)$. $\theta$ increases in the

165:   direction of orbital motion and is zero at the line joining the

166:   centres of the two stars. Intersections of the phase arcs

167:   corresponding to the contact phases of the bright spot are labelled

168:   $Z_{jk}$. Figure from \citet{wood86b}.}

169: \label{fig:wood86bs}

170: \end{figure}

171: 

172: The eclipse constraints on the structure of the bright spot can be

173: used to determine upper limits on the angular size and the radial and

174: vertical extent of the bright spot. Defining $A_{jk}$ and $Z_{jk}$

175: graphically in figure~\ref{fig:wood86bs} as the positions of the

176: intersections of the phase arcs $\phi_{{\rm b}j}$ and $\phi_{{\rm

177: b}k}$ in the $(x,y)$ and $(R\theta,z)$ planes respectively, one can

178: define

179: \begin{subequations}

180: \begin{eqnarray}

181: \label{eq:theta}

182: \Delta \theta & = &

183: (\theta_{23}+\theta_{24}-\theta_{13}-\theta_{14})/2\\

184: \label{eq:r}

185: \Delta R_{\rm{d}} & = & (R_{24}+R_{14}-R_{23}-R_{13})/2\\

186: \label{eq:z}

187: \Delta Z & = & (H_{23}-H_{14})/2\\

188: \label{eq:z2}

189: \Delta Z_{2} & = & H_{23},

190: \end{eqnarray}

191: \end{subequations}

192: where $R_{jk}$ and $\theta_{jk}$ are the radius and azimuth of

193: $A_{jk}$ and $H_{jk}$ the height of $Z_{jk}$ above the orbital

194: plane. Equations~\ref{eq:theta} and \ref{eq:r} are defined as by

195: \citet{wood86b}. Note that the definition of $\Delta Z$ in equation

196: \ref{eq:z} differs slightly to that defined in \citet{wood86b}: this

197: is in order to be more consistent with the definitions of $\Delta

198: \theta$ and $\Delta R_{\rm d}$ in equations \ref{eq:theta} and

199: \ref{eq:r}. $\Delta Z_{2}$, defined in equation~\ref{eq:z2}, is

200: identical to $\Delta Z$ as defined by \citet{wood86b}, and is included

201: here for ease of comparison.

202: 

203: The eclipse constraints on the radius of the white dwarf can be used,

204: together with the mass ratio and orbital inclination to determine the

205: radius of the white dwarf. An alternative possibility is that the

206: sharp eclipse is caused by a bright inner disc region or boundary

207: layer surrounding the white dwarf like a belt. Another possibility is

208: that the lower hemisphere of the white dwarf is obscured by an

209: optically thick accretion disc, which would result in a larger white

210: dwarf radius than that measured (see, for example,

211: figure~\ref{fig:ouvir_whitedwarf}). The latter can be checked, as if

212: the contact phases $\phi_{\rm wi}$ and $\phi_{\rm we}$ lie half-way

213: through the white dwarf ingress and egress, the light distribution

214: must be symmetrical.

215: 

216: The following analysis assumes that the eclipse is solely of a white

217: dwarf. If the eclipse is actually of a belt and the white dwarf itself

218: is not visible, then the white dwarf radius must be somewhat smaller

219: than the radius of the belt. If the white dwarf does contribute

220: significantly to the eclipsed light, then the white dwarf radius

221: derived is actually an upper limit, so that the white dwarf mass

222: determined from it is actually a lower limit

223: (equation~\ref{eq:nauenberg}). The only way to verify the assumption

224: that the central light source is the white dwarf alone is to measure

225: the semi-amplitude of the radial velocity curve of the secondary star,

226: $K_{2}$, and compare the resulting mass to that predicted by the

227: photometric model. One could also check if this assumption is true

228: using a longer baseline of quiescent observations, as one might expect

229: eclipse timings of an accretion belt to be much more variable than

230: those of a white dwarf. I note, however, that the white dwarf masses

231: of OU~Vir and XZ~Eri, given in chapters~\ref{ch:ouvir} and

232: \ref{ch:xzeridvuma} respectively, are consistent with the mean white

233: dwarf mass of $0.69\pm0.13\;{\rm M}_{\odot}$ for CVs below the period gap

234: \citep{smith98a}. Although the white dwarf in DV~UMa is unusually

235: massive, the assumption that we are observing the white dwarf and

236: not the boundary layer around the primary cannot cause this, as the

237: white dwarf mass derived would be in this case a lower limit. Also,

238: \citet{baptista00} point out that in short-period dwarf nov\ae\

239: (specifically OY~Car, Z~Cha and HT~Cas; \citealp{wood90}) like OU~Vir,

240: XZ~Eri and DV~UMa the boundary layer is faint (or absent),

241: whereas longer-period dwarf nov\ae\ such as IP Peg \citep{wood86a} and

242: EX Dra \citep{baptista00} usually have detectable boundary layers. As an

243: illustrative example, in the case of EX~Dra, \citet{baptista00}

244: conclude that the white dwarf is surrounded by an extended boundary

245: layer on the basis of the implausibly low white dwarf masses implied

246: by assuming otherwise and the observed variability of both the flux

247: and duration of the primary eclipse. Throughout this thesis I

248: assume that the central eclipsed object is indeed a white dwarf.

249: 

250: \subsubsection{Light curve deconvolution}

251: \label{sec:deconvolution}

252: Once the white dwarf eclipse contact phases have been found, the white

253: dwarf light curve can be reconstructed and subtracted from the overall

254: light curve, as illustrated in figure~\ref{fig:wood86decon}. The

255: procedure is as follows. The white dwarf flux is

256: assumed to be zero between the contact phases $\phi_{2}$ and

257: $\phi_{3}$, as here the white dwarf is totally eclipsed. The

258: derivative between the contact phases is then numerically

259: integrated. The white dwarf flux is assumed to be constant outside

260: eclipse, and is determined from the mean of the integrated flux at

261: contact phases $\phi_{1}$ and $\phi_{4}$. The result is symmetrized

262: about phase zero, and smoothed to obtain a noise-free estimate of the

263: white dwarf light curve. This can then be subtracted from the overall

264: light curve to give the light curve of the bright spot and disc.  The

265: white dwarf flux thus determined can be used to determine its

266: temperature and distance (see \S~\ref{sec:fitting}).

267: 

268: \begin{figure}

269: \centerline{\includegraphics[width=12cm,angle=0]{figures/wood86decon.jpg}}

270: \caption[Deconvolution of the white dwarf light curve of Z~Cha from

271:   the mean light curve.]{Deconvolution of the white dwarf light curve

272:   of Z~Cha from

273:   the mean light curve. (a) shows the original mean light curve; (b)

274:   the smoothed light curve, offset downwards by 0.5~mJy; (c) the

275:   derivative of the smoothed light curve, with a spline fit to phases

276:   outside ingress and egress superimposed, both offset upwards by

277:   2.75~mJy and multiplied by a factor of 10; (d) the reconstructed

278:   white dwrf eclipse, offset downwards by 1~mJy; and (e) the original

279:   mean light curve after subtraction of the white dwarf light curve,

280:   offset downwards by 3~mJy. The vertical lines mark the contact

281:   phases of the white dwarf and bright spot. Figure from

282:   \citet{wood86b}.}

283: \label{fig:wood86decon}

284: \end{figure}

285: 

286: \section{{\sc Lfit} method}

287: \label{sec:lfit}

288: Another way of determining the system parameters is to use a physical

289: model of the binary system to calculate eclipse light curves for each

290: of the various components. I used the technique developed by

291: \citet{horne94} and described in detail therein. This model assumes

292: that the eclipse is caused by the secondary star, which completely

293: fills its Roche lobe. A few changes were necessary in order to make

294: the model of \citet{horne94} suitable for my data. The most important

295: of these was the fitting of the secondary flux, prompted by the

296: detection of a significant amount of flux from the secondary in the

297: {\em i\/}$^{\prime}$ band of DV~UMa. The secondary flux is very small in

298: all the other bands.

299: 

300: The 10 parameters that control the shape of the light curve are as

301: follows:

302: \begin{enumerate}

303: \item The mass ratio $q$.

304: \item The eclipse phase full-width at half-depth $\Delta\phi$.

305: \item The outer disc radius $R_{\rm{d}}/a$.

306: \item The white dwarf limb darkening coefficient $U_{1}$.

307: \item The white dwarf radius $R_{1}/a$.

308: \item The bright spot scale $SB/a$. The bright spot is modelled as a

309: linear strip passing through the intersection of the gas stream and

310: disc. The relative intensity distribution along this strip is given by

311: $(X/SB)^{2}e^{-X/SB}$, where $X$ is the distance along the strip, the

312: maximum being at the intersection of the bright spot and disc, at

313: $X=2SB$. The relative intensity $I$ of the bright spot is then

314: modulated according to the orbital phase by a sine function. For

315: DV~UMa this function was

316: \begin{subequations}

317: \begin{equation}

318: I = \left\{ \begin{array}{ll}

319:     \sin (\theta_{\rm{B}} + \phi) & \mbox{if $\sin (\theta_{\rm{B}} +

320:     \phi)>0$} \\

321:     0 & \mbox{otherwise}

322:     \end{array}

323:   \right. ,

324: \end{equation}

325: where $\theta_{\rm{B}}$ is as defined below. For XZ~Eri a better fit

326: was achieved using

327: \begin{equation}

328: I = \left\{ \begin{array}{ll}

329:     \sin ^2(\theta_{\rm{B}} + \phi) & \mbox{if $\sin (\theta_{\rm{B}} +

330:     \phi)>0$} \\

331:     0 & \mbox{otherwise}

332:     \end{array}

333:   \right. .

334: \end{equation}

335: \end{subequations}

336: \item The line along which, on the edge of the disc, the bright spot

337: lies is tilted by an angle $\theta_{\rm{B}}$,

338: measured relative to the line joining the white dwarf and the

339: secondary star. The bright spot does not, therefore, necessarily emit

340: its anisotropic light (see below) in a direction normal to the edge of the

341: accretion disc. This allows adjustment of the phase of the orbital hump.

342: \item The fraction of bright spot light which is isotropic

343: $f_{\rm{iso}}$. The bright spot emits a fraction of its light

344: isotropically, in all directions, and the remainder anisotropically,

345: in a direction which determines the phase of the orbital hump

346: maximum.

347: \item The disc exponent $b$, describing the power law of the radial

348: intensity distribution of the disc. The relative intensity $I$ at a

349: radius $R$ of the disc is $I \propto R^{b+1}$.

350: \item A phase offset $\phi_{0}$.

351: \end{enumerate}

352: 

353: The light curve $D(\phi)$ was modelled as a sum of multiple components (the

354: white dwarf, bright spot, accretion disc and red dwarf), the

355: contribution of the first three of which can vary with the orbital

356: phase $\phi$:

357: \begin{equation}

358: \label{eq:modelsum}

359: M(\phi) = \sum_{i=1}^{n} L_{i}(\phi),

360: \end{equation}

361: where $M(\phi)$ is the model flux at phase $\phi$ and $L_{i}(\phi)$ is

362: the flux of component $i$ at phase $\phi$. Fitting of ellipsoidal

363: variations made no

364: significant improvement to the overall fit, so I have assumed the

365: flux from the secondary star to be constant. The {\sc amoeba} algorithm

366: (downhill simplex; \citealp{press86}) was used to adjust selected

367: parameters to find the best fit. The algorithm attempts to minimise

368: $\chi^{2}$, the usual goodness-of-fit statistic:

369: \begin{equation}

370: \label{eq:chisquared}

371: \chi^{2} = \sum_{j=1}^{n} \left(

372: \frac{D_{j}-M_{j}}{\sigma_{j}} \right)^{2}.

373: \end{equation}

374: It is often useful to define a {\em reduced} $\chi^{2}$,

375: \begin{equation}

376: \chi^{2}_{\rm R}=\frac{\chi^{2}}{n-\nu},

377: \label{eq:reducedchisquared}

378: \end{equation}

379: where $\nu$ is the number of degrees of freedom.

380: At each evaluation of the function $M(\phi)$ the light curves of the

381: individual components were scaled using a linear regression, the shape

382: of each light curve being set by the values of the parameters at that

383: time. A positivity constraint was imposed: whenever a negative flux

384: was found for a component, the flux of that component was set to zero

385: and the fit was repeated to determine the flux for the other

386: components. The procedure did not iterate to $\chi^{2}_{\rm R}=1$ due

387: to the presence of flickering and

388: other variability in the light curve not allowed for in the

389: model. Consequently, the algorithm was run until the parameters output

390: no longer changed significantly between iterations (i.e.\ the

391: parameter change was less than the typical uncertainty on each

392: parameter; see below). Typically, a minimum

393: of $10\,000$ iterations were performed to produce the parameters

394: presented in this thesis.

395: 

396: The $1\sigma$ error on an individual parameter of a {\em

397: M}-dimensional model fit is given \citep{lampton76} by the

398: perturbation of that parameter necessary to increase the $\chi^{2}$ of

399: the fit by 1, i.e.

400: \begin{equation}

401: \chi^{2}-\chi_{\rm{min}}^{2}=\Delta\chi^{2}=1.

402: \end{equation}

403: This is, of course, equivalent to finding the root of

404: \begin{equation}

405: \label{eq:chisqerr}

406: f(\chi^{2})=\chi^{2}-\chi_{\rm{min}}^{2}-1.

407: \end{equation}

408: The procedure I employed to determine the errors on each parameter was

409: as follows. I perturbed the parameter of interest from its best fit

410: value by an arbitrary amount (initially 5~per~cent) and re-optimised

411: the rest of them (holding the parameter of interest, and any others

412: originally kept constant, fixed). The {\sc amoeba} algorithm was allowed to

413: iterate for $2100$ iterations, then the new value of $\chi^{2}$ was

414: computed. If the root was not bracketed by the two values of

415: $\chi^{2}$, i.e. $\chi^{2}-\chi_{\rm{min}}^{2}<1$, then the

416: perturbation was increased by a factor of $4$ until it was. A

417: bisection method \citep{press86} was then used to find the value of

418: the parameter in question which gave the root of

419: equation~\ref{eq:chisqerr}, with the value of $\chi^{2}$ at each step

420: being computed as described previously in this paragraph. The

421: difference between the final, perturbed, value of the parameter and

422: its best fit value gave the $1\sigma$ error on that parameter.

423: 

424: \section{Comparing the derivative and {\sc lfit} methods}

425: The methods discussed in the previous two sections, the derivative and

426: {\sc lfit} techniques, were compared with each other using fake

427: light curves.

428: 

429: Fake, noise-free light curves were kindly produced by Dr.~Chris

430: Watson using his {\sc rochey} code to specifications set out by

431: myself. All other work in this section was conducted by myself under

432: the supervision of Dr.~Vik Dhillon. Gaussian noise was then added to

433: the resultant light curve. The errors were of the form

434: \begin{equation}

435: \sigma_{{\rm i}} = E \sqrt{f_{i} f_{2}} + \frac{E f_{2}}{10},

436: \end{equation}

437: where $E$ is an arbitrary number controlling the fractional error,

438: $f_{i}$ the flux on data\-point $i$ and $f_{2}$ the flux on the

439: second datapoint (chosen arbitrarily because it is out of eclipse and

440: not contaminated by the orbital hump). The first term scales the error

441: with the square root of the flux, as expected for shot noise, with the

442: $\sqrt{f_{2}}$ term ensuring that the signal-to-noise ratio of the

443: second datapoint is $\sim\frac{1}{E}$. The final term prevents the

444: error on a zero flux point being zero, which is both unphysical and

445: causes coding problems (mainly with dividing by zero). The noise added

446: to the data was

447: \begin{equation}

448: f_{i} = f_{i}+R\sigma_{i},

449: \end{equation}

450: where $R$ is a normally-distributed random number with zero mean and

451: unit variance. Flickering was modelled by adding additional (Gaussian)

452: noise to the light curve but not increasing the errors. For all the

453: fake light curves used in this section, $E=0.04$ for the addition of

454: both noise and flickering. The amplitude of the flickering scaled with

455: the flux level so that flickering during mid-eclipse was much less

456: than that out of eclipse. This is designed to reproduce the real

457: behaviour of flickering, which is observed to be greatly reduced

458: during eclipse \citep[e.g.][]{patterson81,bruch00b,baptista04}.

459: 

460: The parameters used to produce the fake light curves used for the

461: comparison of the derivative and {\sc lfit} methods are given in

462: table~\ref{tab:fake_in_param}. The properties of the various fake

463: light curves I used are given below:

464: \begin{enumerate}

465: \item A `normal' light curve, with the ingress and egress of the white

466:   dwarf and bright spot clear and distinct.

467: \item As 1, but with the ingress of the white dwarf and bright spot

468:   merged together, as seen for IP~Peg (whose parameters have been used

469:   to produce this light curve).

470: \item The aim of these light curves is to investigate the case of the

471:   compact objects (the white dwarf and bright spot) being relatively

472:   faint. I would expect that if the level of noise and/or flickering

473:   becomes greater than the amplitude of the eclipse, then

474:   determination of the system parameters would become

475:   difficult/impossible.

476:   \begin{enumerate}

477:   \item Faint white dwarf.

478:   \item Faint bright spot.

479:   \end{enumerate}

480: \item The aim of these light curves is to investigate what happens to

481:   the estimated parameters when the assumption that the bright spot

482:   lies at the intersection of the accretion disc and gas stream is

483:   broken. To this end:

484:   \begin{enumerate}

485:   \item The bright spot is ahead of the impact region.

486:   \item The bright spot is behind the impact region.

487:   \end{enumerate}

488: \item These light curves have different accretion disc radii to check

489:   that both techniques are effective over a range of parameters.

490:   \begin{enumerate}

491:   \item A smaller disc radius, of $0.25a$.

492:   \item A larger disc radius, of $0.36a$.

493:   \end{enumerate}

494: \end{enumerate}

495: 

496: The model used to produce the fake light curves was a grid of the

497: accretion disc and secondary star, with each element in the grid array

498: having an adjustable intensity. The secondary star was assumed to fill its

499: Roche lobe, so the surface of the secondary star is defined by the

500: critical potential. The visibility of each grid element, or tile, was

501: tested at a given phase for a given mass ratio and orbital

502: inclination, and a light curve built up in this manner. The grid used

503: for model 1 (described in table~\ref{tab:fake_in_param}) is

504: illustrated in figure~\ref{fig:grid}. The disc has a height of

505: $0.0002a$ above the orbital plane, with the rim of the disc being

506: subdivided into tiles which can be used to model the orbital hump. The

507: white dwarf was modelled by increasing the intensity of the disc tiles

508: at the centre of the disc. The bright spot was modelled by a disc rim

509: only. Modelling the bright spot as a combination of the disc rim and

510: tiles in the outer annulus of the disc led to incorrect determinations

511: of the disc radius and mass ratio. This is because the disc rim is at

512: the outer radius of the accretion disc, whereas, since a tile is only

513: flagged as eclipsed when its centre is eclipsed, the radius of the

514: outer annulus is slightly (the difference being half the width of the

515: outer annulus) smaller than the radius

516: of the disc rim. The intensity of the secondary star was set to zero

517: in all models, as it is usually very faint in faint short-period dwarf

518: nov\ae.

519: 

520: \begin{figure}

521: \centerline{\includegraphics[width=12cm,angle=-90]{figures/grid.jpg}}

522: \caption[The model grid used to produce the fake data for comparing

523:   the results of the derivative and {\sc lfit} techniques.]{The model

524:   grid used to produce the fake data for comparing the results of the

525:   derivative and {\sc lfit} techniques. The origin is at the centre of

526:   mass; otherwise the co-ordinate system is as described in

527:   chapter~\ref{ch:introduction}. Figure by Dr.~Chris Watson.}

528: \label{fig:grid}

529: \end{figure}

530: 

531: The parameters recovered from the various models are given in

532: tables~\ref{tab:fake_out_param_lfit} and \ref{tab:fake_out_param_der}

533: for the {\sc lfit} and derivative techniques, respectively. The

534: light curve fits from the {\sc lfit} program are shown in

535: figures~\ref{fig:fake_1}--\ref{fig:fake_5b}. 

536: 

537: \begin{sidewaystable}

538: \begin{center}

539: \caption[The input parameters of the fake light curves used

540:   for comparison of the derivative and {\sc lfit} methods.]

541:   {The input parameters of the fake light curves used

542:   for comparison of the derivative and {\sc lfit} methods. The

543:   white dwarf has in all cases a radius $R_{1}=0.02a$ and the

544:   bright spot $R_{\rm{bs}}=0.04a$. The disc radius is

545:   $R_{\rm{d}}=0.3a$ for all the light curves except models 5a and

546:   5b. The relative contributions (in arbitrary units) of the white

547:   dwarf (WD), bright spot (BS), accretion disc (AD) and red dwarf (RD)

548:   are also given.}

549: \vspace{0.3cm}

550: \small

551: \begin{tabular}{lcccccccccc}

552: \hline

553:  & & & & & \multicolumn{2}{c}{Bright spot position} &

554:  \multicolumn{4}{c}{Flux (arbitrary units)} \\

555: Model & $q$ & $i (\deg)$ & $\Delta\phi$ & $P$~(sec) & $x/a$ & $y/a$ & WD

556:  & BS & AD & RD \\ 

557: \hline

558: 1 & 0.20 & $85.0^{\circ}$ & 0.0725 & 7200 & 0.2663 & 0.1381 & 13.00678

559:  & 14.29689 & 2.45069 & 0 \\

560: 2 & 0.43 & $82.2^{\circ}$ & 0.0863 & 13669 & 0.2826 & 0.1006 & 13.9795

561:  & 11.6358 & 3.79294 & 0 \\

562: 3a & 0.20 & $85.0^{\circ}$ & 0.0725 & 7200 & 0.2663 & 0.1381 & 2.1678

563:  & 14.29689 & 2.45069 & 0 \\

564: 3b & 0.20 & $85.0^{\circ}$ & 0.0725 & 7200 & 0.2663 & 0.1381 &

565:  13.00678 & 2.3828 & 2.45069 & 0 \\

566: 4a & 0.20 & $85.0^{\circ}$ & 0.0725 & 7200 & 0.2472 & 0.1700 &

567:  13.00677 & 14.30843 & 2.45069 & 0 \\

568: 4b & 0.20 & $85.0^{\circ}$ & 0.0725 & 7200 & 0.2828 & 0.1000 &

569:  13.00677 & 14.08273 & 2.45069 & 0 \\

570: 5a & 0.20 & $85.0^{\circ}$ & 0.0725 & 7200 & 0.2006 & 0.1491 &

571:  12.91617 & 11.92371 & 1.6998 & 0 \\

572: 5b & 0.20 & $85.0^{\circ}$ & 0.0725 & 7200 & 0.3396 & 0.1195 &

573:  12.92509 & 7.42059 & 3.51082 & 0 \\

574: \hline

575: \end{tabular}

576: \normalsize

577: \label{tab:fake_in_param}

578: \end{center}

579: \end{sidewaystable}

580: 

581: \begin{table}

582: \begin{center}

583: \caption[Reconstructed parameters from {\sc lfit}.]{Reconstructed

584:   parameters from {\sc lfit}.}

585: \vspace{0.3cm}

586: \small

587: \begin{tabular}{l|c|c|cc}

588: \hline

589:  & \multicolumn{4}{c}{Model number} \\ \cline{2-5}

590: Parameter & 1 & 2 & \multicolumn{2}{|c}{3} \\

591:  & & & a & b \\

592: \hline

593: Error (per cent) & 4 & 4 & 4 & 4 \\

594: Flickering & & & & \\

595: \hspace{0.1cm} (per cent) & 4 & 4 & 4 & 4 \\

596: Inclination $i$ & $84.8^{\circ}\pm0.1^{\circ}$ & $81.6^{\circ}\pm0.1$

597: & $84.77^{\circ}\pm0.03^{\circ}$ & $86.2^{\circ}\pm0.4^{\circ}$ \\

598: Mass ratio $q$ & $0.2035$ & $0.455$ & $0.20579$ & $0.181$ \\

599: & $\pm0.0010$ & $\pm0.004$ & $\pm0.00014$ & $\pm0.006$ \\

600: Eclipse phase & $0.07255$ & $0.08629$ & $0.072643$ & $0.07252$ \\

601: \hspace{0.1cm} width $\Delta\phi$ & $\pm0.00005$ & $\pm0.00004$ &

602: $\pm0.00015$ & $\pm0.00005$ \\

603: Outer disc & $0.2983$ & $0.2912$ & $0.29558$ & $0.3215$ \\

604: \hspace{0.1cm} radius $R_{\rm{d}}/a$ & $\pm0.0013$ & $\pm0.0023$ &

605: $\pm0.00026$ & $\pm0.0004$ \\ 

606: White dwarf & & & & \\

607: \hspace{0.1cm} limb & $0.5$ & $0.5$ & $0.5$ & $0.5$ \\

608: \hspace{0.1cm} darkening $U_{\rm{1}}$ & & & & \\

609: White dwarf & $0.0132$ & $0.0106$ & $0.0135$ & $0.01376$ \\ 

610: \hspace{0.1cm} radius $R_{1}/a$ & $\pm0.0003$ & $\pm0.0003$ &

611: $\pm0.0006$ & $\pm0.00029$ \\

612: Bright spot & $0.01179$ & $0.01135$ & $0.01169$ & $0.0123$ \\ 

613: \hspace{0.1cm} scale $SB/a$ & $\pm0.00018$ & $\pm0.00026$ &

614: $\pm0.00006$ & $\pm0.0006$ \\

615: Bright spot & $119.42^{\circ}$ & $111.51^{\circ}$ & $119.41^{\circ}$ &

616: $119.3^{\circ}$ \\

617: \hspace{0.1cm} orientation $\theta_{\rm{B}}$ &

618: $\pm0.08^{\circ}$ & $\pm0.16^{\circ}$ &

619: $\pm0.012^{\circ}$ & $\pm0.5^{\circ}$ \\

620: Isotropic flux & $0.0017$ & $0.009$ & $0.0006$ & $0.013$ \\ 

621: \hspace{0.1cm} fraction $f_{\rm iso}$ & $\pm0.0028$ & $\pm0.008$ &

622: $\pm0.0013$ & $\pm0.015$ \\

623: Disc exponent $b$ & $0.16\pm0.12$ & $0.10\pm0.3$ & $0.10\pm0.18$ &

624: $-0.49\pm0.12$ \\

625: Phase offset $\phi_{0}$ & $0$ & $0$ & $0$ & $0$ \\

626: $\chi^{2}$ of fit & $14498$ & $25940$ & $18688$ & $13127$ \\  

627: Number of & & & & \\

628: \hspace{0.1cm} datapoints $\nu$ & $7199$ & $13668$ & $7199$ & $7199$ \\

629: \hline

630: Flux & & & & \\

631: \hspace{0.1cm} (arbitrary units) & & & & \\

632: \hspace{0.1cm} White dwarf & $13.08\pm0.04$ & $14.039\pm0.038$ &

633: $2.199\pm0.022$ & $12.94\pm0.03$ \\

634: \hspace{0.1cm} Accretion disc & $2.37\pm0.04$ & $3.59\pm0.04$ &

635: $2.422\pm0.028$ & $2.50\pm0.03$ \\

636: \hspace{0.1cm} Secondary & $0$ & $0.042\pm0.010$ & $0.006\pm0.008$ &

637: $0$ \\

638: \hspace{0.1cm} Bright spot & $14.288\pm0.026$ & $12.094\pm0.024$ &

639: $14.289\pm0.011$ & $2.395\pm0.020$ \\

640: \hline

641: \end{tabular}

642: \normalsize

643: \label{tab:fake_out_param_lfit}

644: \end{center}

645: \end{table}

646: 

647: \setcounter{table}{1}

648: \begin{table}

649: \begin{center}

650: \caption[{\em Continued}. Reconstructed parameters from {\sc

651:     lfit}.]{{\em Continued}. Reconstructed parameters from {\sc

652:     lfit}. No error estimates could be determined for some parameters

653:     of model 4a, since the fit became unphysical if left to iterate to

654:     convergence.}

655: \vspace{0.3cm}

656: \small

657: \begin{tabular}{l|cc|cc}

658: \hline

659:  & \multicolumn{4}{c}{Model number} \\ \cline{2-5}

660: Parameter & \multicolumn{2}{|c}{4} & \multicolumn{2}{|c}{5} \\

661:  & a & b & a & b \\

662: \hline

663: Error (per cent) & 4 & 4 & 4 & 4 \\

664: Flickering & & & & \\

665: \hspace{0.1cm} (per cent) & 4 & 4 & 4 & 4 \\

666: Inclination $i$ & $89.7^{\circ}$ & $77.3^{\circ}\pm0.1^{\circ}$ &

667: $84.4^{\circ}\pm0.1^{\circ}$ & $85.6^{\circ}\pm0.2^{\circ}$ \\

668: Mass ratio $q$ & $0.157$ & $0.5254$ & $0.2128$ & $0.1902$ \\

669: & & $\pm0.0024$ & $\pm0.0013$ & $\pm0.0020$ \\ 

670: Eclipse phase & $0.0725$ & $0.07258$ &

671: $0.07259$ & $0.07255$ \\

672: \hspace{0.1cm} width $\Delta\phi$ & &

673: $\pm0.00005$ & $\pm0.00006$ & $\pm0.00006$ \\ 

674: Outer disc & $0.2908$ & $0.2635$ & $0.2439$ &

675: $0.3629$ \\

676: \hspace{0.1cm} radius $R_{\rm{d}}/a$ & $\pm0.0011$ & $\pm0.0007$ &

677: $\pm0.0007$ & $\pm0.0008$ \\

678: White dwarf & & & & \\

679: \hspace{0.1cm} limb & $0.5$ & $0.5$ & $0.5$ & $0.5$ \\

680: \hspace{0.1cm} darkening $U_{\rm{1}}$ & & & & \\

681: White dwarf & $0.01420$ & $0.01137$ & $0.0174$ &

682: $0.0137$ \\ 

683: \hspace{0.1cm} radius $R_{1}/a$ & $\pm0.00026$ & $\pm0.00021$ &

684: $\pm0.0003$ & $0.0004$ \\

685: Bright spot & $0.0160$ & $0.01448$ & $0.00928$ & $0.00612$ \\ 

686: \hspace{0.1cm} scale $SB/a$ & $\pm0.0003$

687: & $\pm0.00016$ & $\pm0.00016$ & $0.00020$ \\ 

688: Bright spot & $126.95^{\circ}$ & $111.08^{\circ}$ & $127.94^{\circ}$ &

689: $110.76^{\circ}$ \\

690: \hspace{0.1cm} orientation $\theta_{\rm{B}}$ &

691: $\pm0.09^{\circ}$ & $\pm0.08^{\circ}$ &

692: $\pm0.11^{\circ}$ & $\pm0.16$ \\

693: Isotropic flux & $0.030$ & $0.0091$ & $0.0013$ &

694: $0.018$ \\ 

695: \hspace{0.1cm} fraction $f_{\rm iso}$ & $\pm0.003$ & $\pm0.0026$ &

696: $\pm0.0027$ & $\pm0.006$ \\

697: Disc exponent $b$ & $-0.70\pm0.23$ & $0.2\pm0.4$ & $-0.93\pm0.13$ &

698: $-0.08\pm0.15$ \\

699: Phase offset $\phi_{0}$ & $0$ & $0$ & $0$ & $0$ \\

700: $\chi^{2}$ of fit & $16399$ & $14523$ & $14385$ & $13538$ \\  

701: Number of & & & & \\

702: \hspace{0.1cm} datapoints $\nu$ & $7199$ & $7199$ & $7199$ & $7199$ \\

703: \hline

704: Flux & & & & \\

705: \hspace{0.1cm} (arbitrary units) & & & & \\

706: \hspace{0.1cm} White dwarf & $12.71\pm0.06$ & $13.28\pm0.05$ &

707: $12.86\pm0.04$ & $12.97\pm0.06$ \\

708: \hspace{0.1cm} Accretion disc & $2.14\pm0.08$ & $1.79\pm0.06$ &

709: $1.76\pm0.04$ & $3.25\pm0.09$ \\

710: \hspace{0.1cm} Secondary & $0.175\pm0.017$ & $0.273\pm0.013$ & $0$ &

711: $0.09\pm0.03$ \\

712: \hspace{0.1cm} Bright spot & $14.658\pm0.025$ & $14.303\pm0.028$ &

713: $11.898\pm0.023$ & $7.78\pm0.03$ \\

714: \hline

715: \end{tabular}

716: \normalsize

717: \end{center}

718: \end{table}

719: 

720: \begin{table}

721: \begin{center}

722: \caption[Reconstructed parameters from the derivative

723:   method.]{Reconstructed parameters from the derivative method.}

724: \vspace{0.3cm}

725: \small

726: \begin{tabular}{l|c|c|cc}

727: \hline

728:  & \multicolumn{4}{c}{Model number}\\

729: \cline{2-5}

730: Parameter & 1 & 2 & \multicolumn{2}{|c}{3} \\

731:  & & & a & b \\

732: \hline

733: Error (per cent) & 4 & 4 & 4 & 4 \\

734: Flickering (per cent) & 4 & 4 & 4 & 4 \\

735: Inclination $i$ & $84.8^{\circ}$ & $81.9^{\circ}$ & $85.4^{\circ}$ &

736:  $88.0^{\circ}$ \\

737: Mass ratio $q$ & 0.206 & 0.470 & 0.200 & 0.169 \\

738: $\Delta\phi$ & 0.072649 & 0.088308 & 0.073344 & 0.073205 \\

739: $\Delta R_{{\rm d}}/a$ & 0.0326 & 0.0692 & 0.0314 & 0.1589 \\

740: $\Delta \theta$ & $9.4^{\circ}$ & $11.8^{\circ}$ & $16.1^{\circ}$ &

741:  $12.5^{\circ}$ \\

742: $\Delta Z/a$ & -- & -- & -- & -- \\

743: $\Delta Z_{2}/a$ & 0.0347 & 0.0586 & 0.0539 & 0.0987 \\

744: $R_{{\rm d}}/a$ & 0.3043 & 0.2944 & 0.3076 & 0.3394 \\

745: $\theta$ & $26.3^{\circ}$ & $19.4^{\circ}$ & $26.3^{\circ}$ &

746:  $23.5^{\circ}$ \\

747: \hline

748: \end{tabular}

749: \normalsize

750: \label{tab:fake_out_param_der}

751: \end{center}

752: \end{table}

753: 

754: \setcounter{table}{2}

755: \begin{table}

756: \begin{center}

757: \caption[{\em Continued}. Reconstructed parameters from the derivative

758:   method.]{{\em Continued}. Reconstructed parameters from the

759:   derivative method.}

760: \vspace{0.3cm}

761: \small

762: \begin{tabular}{l|cc|cc}

763: \hline

764:  & \multicolumn{4}{c}{Model number}\\

765: \cline{2-5}

766: Parameter & \multicolumn{2}{|c}{4} & \multicolumn{2}{|c}{5} \\

767:  & a & b & a & b \\

768: \hline

769: Error (per cent) & 4 & 4 & 4 & 4 \\

770: Flickering (per cent) & 4 & 4 & 4 & 4 \\

771: Inclination $i$ & -- & $77.3^{\circ}$ & $86.8^{\circ}$ & $85.9^{\circ}$ \\

772: Mass ratio $q$ & $<0.164$ & 0.53 & 0.195 & $0.185$ \\

773: $\Delta\phi$ & 0.073344 & 0.072927 & 0.075149 & 0.072510 \\

774: $\Delta R_{{\rm d}}/a$ & -- & 0.0332 & 0.0293 & 0.0406 \\

775: $\Delta \theta$ & -- & $21.2^{\circ}$ & $21.5^{\circ}$ & $5.1^{\circ}$ \\ 

776: $\Delta Z/a$ & -- & 0.0346 & -- & 0.0515 \\

777: $\Delta Z_{2}/a$ & -- & 0.0296 & 0.0421 & 0.0549 \\ 

778: $R_{{\rm d}}/a$ & -- & 0.2369 & 0.2460 & 0.3633 \\ 

779: $\theta$ & -- & $26.7^{\circ}$ & $37.9^{\circ}$ & $19.6^{\circ}$ \\

780: \hline

781: \end{tabular}

782: \normalsize

783: \end{center}

784: \end{table}

785: 

786: The errors on the parameters as determined by {\sc lfit} are clearly

787: too small when compared to the input parameters given in

788: table~\ref{tab:fake_in_param}. As such, they likely represent the {\em

789: reproducibility\/} of the fit to the data, rather than the standard

790: deviation from the true values. It is probable that there is a

791: systematic error present between the model used to generate the

792: light curves and the model used to reconstruct them. This highlights

793: the fact that any such model-fitting approach to the determination of

794: the system parameters will suffer from the applicability of the model:

795: that is, one does not know how far from reality the model deviates. One

796: such likely discrepancy is in the form of the bright spot intensity

797: distribution. {\sc Lfit} models this in the eminently reasonable form

798: given in \S~\ref{sec:lfit}. If the intensity distribution of the

799: bright spot differs from this, however, then a systematic error will

800: be introduced into the estimate of the mass ratio due to the position

801: of the centre-of-light of the bright spot differing from that

802: expected. Another possible explanation of the small errors is that

803: they may be due to the program having difficulty in iterating to

804: $\chi^{2}_{{\rm min}}$ during the bisection used to determine the

805: errors.

806: 

807: I did not estimate uncertainties for the parameters produced by the

808: derivative technique, as first, the dominant source of error is

809: likely to be systematic differences between the models used to produce

810: and analyse the light curves and second, due to the prohibitive amount of

811: time it would have taken to produce and analyse the multiple light

812: curves necessary to determine the rms variations in the contact phases.

813: 

814: Models 1, 2, 3a, 4b, 5a, 5b and arguably 3b were satisfactorily

815: reconstructed by both the {\sc lfit} and derivative methods. Model 4a

816: was found to produce an unphysical light curve with the derivative

817: technique, since the constraints placed upon the eclipse phase width

818: $\Delta\phi$ (by the white dwarf eclipse width) and the mass ratio $q$

819: (by the positions of the bright spot ingress and egress) were not

820: consistent with an orbital inclination $i\leq90^{\circ}$. The {\sc

821: lfit} method produced a very small mass ratio (as might be expected,

822: since a reduction in $q$ moves the path of the gas stream further from

823: the white dwarf), but also a very high orbital inclination, which

824: meant that the solution found by the iterative procedure became

825: unphysical if left to iterate towards an optimum result. Model 4b was

826: reconstructed with a lower orbital inclination, which was caused by

827: the model fitting a larger mass ratio in order to place the bright

828: spot at the correct location. Models 5a and 5b were adequately

829: reconstructed by each technique, confirming the reliability of both

830: over a range of different accretion disc radii.

831: 

832: Comparison of the recovered parameters for models 3a and 3b leads to

833: the conclusion that the visibility of the bright spot is more

834: important than the visibility of the white dwarf. This is perhaps due

835: to the fact that the white dwarf eclipse is symmetrical, so the twin

836: constraints of ingress and egress lead it to being much less

837: susceptible to noise in the data than the a symmetric light curve of

838: the bright spot. The times of ingress and egress of the bright spot

839: are dependent on more parameters than those of the white dwarf: the

840: bright spot times depend on the mass ratio, the disc radius, the phase

841: offset and the orbital inclination, as opposed to the eclipse phase

842: width, the phase offset and the orbital inclination for the white dwarf.

843: 

844: The fluxes recovered for each component by the {\sc lfit} method were

845: generally in good agreement with the input fluxes, as can be seen by

846: comparison of the relevant figures in tables~\ref{tab:fake_in_param} and

847: \ref{tab:fake_out_param_lfit}. The largest discrepancies occur for

848: models 4a and 4b, as might be expected, since one of the basic

849: assumptions of the method is deliberately broken for both these

850: models. Again, it appears that systematic errors frequently dominate,

851: a fact that should be borne in mind when fluxes derived in this way

852: are used.

853: 

854: In conclusion, both techniques reproduced the system parameters well

855: in all of the realistic light curves (models 1, 2, 3a, 3b, 5a

856: and 5b). The parameters for model 3b were rather less accurate, as the

857: bright spot was to some extent lost amongst the noise. The errors

858: determined by the {\sc lfit} method (by increasing $\chi^{2}$ by 1)

859: were too small, suggesting that systematic errors introduced by

860: differences between the assumed model and the real case are the

861: dominant source of error. Agreement between the two methods was good

862: for all the models investigated. Breaking the assumption that the

863: bright spot was at the intersection of the gas stream and accretion

864: disc's outer edge had predictable results: placing it ahead of

865: the intersection led to too small a mass ratio; behind too large a

866: mass ratio.

867: 

868: These two techniques were also compared using real data, as discussed

869: in \S~\ref{sec:xzeridvumacomp}.

870: 

871: \newpage

872: 

873: \begin{figure}

874: \centerline{\includegraphics[width=12cm,angle=-90]{figures/fake_1.jpg}}

875: \caption[Fake light curve produced and fitted as described in the text using the

876:   parameters given in table~\ref{tab:fake_in_param} for model 1.]{Fake

877:   light curve produced as described in the text using the parameters

878:   given in table~\ref{tab:fake_in_param} for model 1.}

879: \label{fig:fake_1}

880: \end{figure}

881: 

882: \begin{figure}

883: \centerline{\includegraphics[width=12cm,angle=-90]{figures/fake_2.jpg}}

884: \caption[Fake light curve produced and fitted as described in the text using the

885:   parameters given in table~\ref{tab:fake_in_param} for model 2.]{Fake

886:   light curve produced as described in the text using the parameters

887:   given in table~\ref{tab:fake_in_param} for model 2.}

888: \label{fig:fake_2}

889: \end{figure}

890: 

891: \clearpage

892: 

893: \begin{figure}

894: \centerline{\includegraphics[width=12cm,angle=-90]{figures/fake_3a.jpg}}

895: \caption[Fake light curve produced and fitted as described in the text using the

896:   parameters given in table~\ref{tab:fake_in_param} for model 3a.]{Fake

897:   light curve produced as described in the text using the parameters

898:   given in table~\ref{tab:fake_in_param} for model 3a.}

899: \label{fig:fake_3a}

900: \end{figure}

901: 

902: \begin{figure}

903: \centerline{\includegraphics[width=12cm,angle=-90]{figures/fake_3b.jpg}}

904: \caption[Fake light curve produced and fitted as described in the text using the

905:   parameters given in table~\ref{tab:fake_in_param} for model 3b.]{Fake

906:   light curve produced as described in the text using the parameters

907:   given in table~\ref{tab:fake_in_param} for model 3b.}

908: \label{fig:fake_3b}

909: \end{figure}

910: 

911: \clearpage

912: 

913: \begin{figure}

914: \centerline{\includegraphics[width=12cm,angle=-90]{figures/fake_4a.jpg}}

915: \caption[Fake light curve produced and fitted as described in the text using the

916:   parameters given in table~\ref{tab:fake_in_param} for model 4a.]{Fake

917:   light curve produced as described in the text using the parameters

918:   given in table~\ref{tab:fake_in_param} for model 4a.}

919: \label{fig:fake_4a}

920: \end{figure}

921: 

922: \begin{figure}

923: \centerline{\includegraphics[width=12cm,angle=-90]{figures/fake_4b.jpg}}

924: \caption[Fake light curve produced and fitted as described in the text using the

925:   parameters given in table~\ref{tab:fake_in_param} for model 4b.]{Fake

926:   light curve produced as described in the text using the parameters

927:   given in table~\ref{tab:fake_in_param} for model 4b.}

928: \label{fig:fake_4b}

929: \end{figure}

930: 

931: \clearpage

932: 

933: \begin{figure}

934: \centerline{\includegraphics[width=12cm,angle=-90]{figures/fake_5a.jpg}}

935: \caption[Fake light curve produced and fitted as described in the text using the

936:   parameters given in table~\ref{tab:fake_in_param} for model 5a.]{Fake

937:   light curve produced as described in the text using the parameters

938:   given in table~\ref{tab:fake_in_param} for model 5a.}

939: \label{fig:fake_5a}

940: \end{figure}

941: 

942: \begin{figure}

943: \centerline{\includegraphics[width=12cm,angle=-90]{figures/fake_5b.jpg}}

944: \caption[Fake light curve produced and fitted as described in the text

945:   using the

946:   parameters given in table~\ref{tab:fake_in_param} for model 5b.]{Fake

947:   light curve produced as described in the text using the parameters

948:   given in table~\ref{tab:fake_in_param} for model 5b.}

949: \label{fig:fake_5b}

950: \end{figure}

951: 

952: \clearpage

953: 

954: \section{Mass determination}

955: \label{sec:massdet}

956: The derivative and {\sc lfit} techniques yield the system parameters

957: relative to the orbital separation (or the L$_{1}$ distance).

958: To determine the absolute system parameters I have used the

959: Nauenberg mass-radius relation for a cold, non-rotating white dwarf

960: (equation~\ref{eq:nauenberg})\footnote{From here on, I refer to

961: parameters measured in units of the orbital separation or L$_{1}$

962: distance as {\em relative} and those measured in solar units as {\em

963: absolute}.}. If one sets $R_{1}/a=y$, Kepler's third law

964: (equation~\ref{eq:kepler}) can be rewritten in terms of the parameters

965: $R_{1}$ and $y$, giving another restriction on the white dwarf radius:

966: \begin{equation}

967: \label{eq:kepler2}

968: R_{1}=y \left( \frac{GM_{1}(1+q)P^{2}_{\rm{orb}}}{4\pi^{2}} \right)

969: ^{\frac{1}{3}}.

970: \end{equation}

971: Equations \ref{eq:nauenberg} and \ref{eq:kepler2} can be easily solved

972: to give the system parameters. The secondary radius $R_{2}$ can be

973: calculated by approximating it to the volume radius of the Roche

974: lobe (equation~\ref{eq:RL2}).

975: 

976: As the \citet{nauenberg72} mass-radius relation assumes a cold white

977: dwarf, I have attempted to correct this relation to the approximate

978: temperature given by a fit to the deconvolved white dwarf fluxes (see

979: below). \citet{wood89a} and \citet{koester86} note that the radius of

980: a white dwarf at $10^{4}$~K is about 5 per cent larger than a cold

981: white dwarf. To correct to the appropriate temperature from $10^{4}$~K

982: the white dwarf cooling curves of \citet{wood95} have been used.

983: 

984: \section{White dwarf model atmospheres}

985: \label{sec:fitting}

986: 

987: The temperature and distance of the white dwarf component can be

988: determined by fitting the fluxes from three filters to the spectrum of

989: a blackbody or model atmosphere.

990: 

991: The expected flux $f$ from a blackbody $B_{\nu}(\lambda , T)$ in a

992: passband with transmission function $P(\lambda)$ is

993: \citep[e.g.][]{wood89a}

994: \begin{equation}

995: \label{eq:flux}

996: f= \frac{\int P(\lambda)B_{\nu}(\lambda , T)d\lambda/\lambda}{\int

997:   P(\lambda)d\lambda/\lambda}\cdot \frac{\pi R^{2}_{1}}{D^{2}},

998: \end{equation}

999: where $D$ is the distance to the star. By fitting a blackbody function

1000: to the white dwarf flux in each passband the white dwarf temperature

1001: $T_{1}$ and distance can be determined. As a white dwarf spectrum is

1002: one of the closest astronomical approximations to a blackbody, this

1003: procedure is reasonable.

1004: 

1005: The white dwarf fluxes were also fitted to the hydrogen-rich, $\log

1006: g=8$ white dwarf model atmospheres of \citet{bergeron95} by

1007: $\chi^{2}$ minimisation. The colour indices quoted therein were

1008: converted to the SDSS system using the observed transformations of

1009: \citet{smith02}. This procedure determined the temperature of the

1010: white dwarf but not the distance, since the absolute magnitude (and

1011: hence the distance) is much more heavily dependent on the exact value

1012: of $\log g$ than the colours (which give the temperature). This latter

1013: method, however, will determine the white dwarf temperature more

1014: accurately than a blackbody fit, as it will allow, for example, for

1015: the Balmer jump in the white dwarf spectrum.

1016: 

1017: \section{Eclipse mapping}

1018: \label{sec:em}

1019: In \S~\ref{sec:gasstream} I discussed various theoretical models and

1020: predicted properties of accretion discs, and alluded to a technique

1021: whereby the intensity distribution across the disc could be uncovered.

1022: This technique, called {\em eclipse mapping}, is the subject of this

1023: section.

1024: 

1025: The eclipse mapping method was developed by \citet{horne85}. It

1026: enables the light distribution across the disc (including the

1027: contributions of the white dwarf and bright spot) of eclipsing systems

1028: to be mapped. The shape of the eclipse produced by the occultation of

1029: the accretion disc by the red dwarf depends on the light distribution

1030: across the disc. Unfortunately, as the eclipse light curve is

1031: one-dimensional, and the light distribution across the disc is

1032: two-dimensional (in the approximation of a flat disc), the solution is

1033: not unique. One possible solution to this is to use a model-fitting

1034: approach, but this has the obvious disadvantage that it is

1035: model-dependent. This problem becomes more acute when it is considered

1036: that our present knowledge of accretion disc physics is

1037: incomplete. The departure of accretion discs in CVs from axi-symmetry,

1038: due to the impact of the gas stream with the edge of the disc, provide

1039: another problem for model-fitting procedures.

1040: 

1041: The above concerns naturally lead to the eclipse-mapping approach. In

1042: this method, the intensity at each point of the accretion disc is an

1043: independent parameter. In the simplest implementation of the method,

1044: the disc is modelled as a simple Cartesian grid, co-rotating with the

1045: binary system. In this form, the eclipse mapping method makes three

1046: basic assumptions:

1047: \begin{enumerate}

1048: \item The secondary star fills its Roche-lobe. There is ample evidence

1049:   (e.g.\ ellipsoidal variations from the distorted secondary star;

1050:   \citealp{allan96}) for mass transfer via Roche-lobe overflow

1051:   (the very presence of the accretion disc and bright spot imply it),

1052:   so this assumption seems reasonably valid.

1053: \item The intensity distribution is two-dimensional; it is constrained

1054:   to the orbital plane. \citet{rutten98} found that this is a good

1055:   assumption provided that the inner disc regions are not obscured by

1056:   the disc rim. The opening angles of accretion discs in CVs are

1057:   typically $\sim 5^{\circ}$ (for example, the disc in the SW~Sex star

1058:   DW~UMa has an opening angle of $\geq8^{\circ}$; \citealp{knigge00}), so

1059:   this assumption is (reasonably) valid for orbital inclinations

1060:   $i\lesssim85^{\circ}$.

1061: \item The emission is phase-independent (apart from the eclipse by the

1062:   secondary star). This last assumption is the most problematic. Many

1063:   CVs have orbital humps due to anisotropic radiation from the bright

1064:   spot, which violates this assumption. In the following section I

1065:   discuss how this may be accounted for.

1066: \end{enumerate}

1067: 

1068: The eclipse-mapping technique has since been further developed to

1069: allow spectral eclipse mapping \citep{rutten93,rutten94a}, modelling

1070: of a three-dimensional accretion disc \citep{rutten98}, fitting of

1071: multi-colour light curves by physical properties of a model disc

1072: (so-called {\em physical parameter\/} eclipse mapping; see

1073: \citealp{vrielmann02}) and mapping the spatial location of the

1074: flickering source in the discs of CVs

1075: \citep{welsh95,bruch00b,baptista04}.

1076: 

1077: \subsection{Theory}

1078: This section follows the derivations given by \citet{skilling84},

1079: \citet{gull89,gull91} and \citet{watson02a}.

1080: 

1081: Eclipse mapping requires that we use the observed data $D$ to make

1082: inferences about the various possible intensity distributions across

1083: the disc $A, B, C\ldots$ etc. Letting $h$ represent any of the

1084: hypotheses $A, B, C\ldots$, we wish to calculate

1085: \begin{equation}

1086: P(h|D),

1087: \end{equation}

1088: which is the probability of $h$ occurring, given $D$. The data,

1089: however, give

1090: \begin{equation}

1091: P(D|h),

1092: \end{equation}

1093: the likelihood of $D$ occurring, given $h$. In order to reverse

1094: $P(D|h)$ to obtain $P(h|D)$, note that the probability of {\em both\/}

1095: $h$ and $D$ occurring is

1096: \begin{subequations}

1097: \begin{eqnarray}

1098: P(h,D) & = & P(h)P(D|h) \\

1099:  & = & P(D)P(h|D),

1100: \end{eqnarray}

1101: \end{subequations}

1102: where $P(h)$ and $P(D)$ are the probabilities of the prior $h$ and the

1103: evidence $D$. The prior probability term includes our prior

1104: expectations about possible intensity distributions across the disc

1105: $h$ {\em before\/} acquiring the data $D$. Rearranging the above

1106: equations, we obtain Bayes' theorem

1107: \begin{equation}

1108: \label{eq:bayes}

1109: P(h|D) = \frac{P(h)P(D|h)}{P(D)}.

1110: \end{equation}

1111: The selection of $h$ proceeds by choosing that intensity distribution

1112: which maximises the entropy (that is, is maximally

1113: non-committal). 

1114: The entropy $S(h)$ is defined in this thesis as

1115: \begin{equation}

1116: S(h) = \sum_{j=1}^{n} \left[ h_{j} - d_{j} - h_{j}\ln

1117:   \left(\frac{h_{j}}{d_{j}}\right) \right],

1118: \end{equation}

1119: where $h_{j}$ is the intensity of element $j$ and $d_{j}$ is a {\em

1120:   default\/} image to which the reconstruction

1121: will default in the absence of data. The default image may

1122: be used to include prior knowledge of the likely distribution of the

1123: light across the disc. This is discussed in more detail in the next

1124: section. The entropy measures the deviation of the reconstructed

1125: intensity map $h_{j}$ with respect to the default map $d_{j}$. The

1126: global maximum of the entropy is therefore at $h=d$, where $S=0$.

1127: 

1128: It can be shown \citep{gull89,gull91} that

1129: \begin{equation}

1130: \label{eq:probh}

1131: P(h)\propto \exp (\alpha S),

1132: \end{equation}

1133: where $\alpha$ is some constant. In order to be able to solve

1134: equation~\ref{eq:bayes} we now require only $P(D|h)$.

1135: 

1136: If the only variations in the observed data (the light curve) are due

1137: to the eclipse of the disc by the secondary star, then the data

1138: $D(\phi)$ must be related to the intensity distribution across the

1139: disc $h(j)\equiv h_{j}$ by

1140: \begin{equation}

1141: \label{eq:datasum}

1142: D(\phi) = \sum_{j=1}^{n} V(j,\phi)h(j) \pm \sigma(\phi),

1143: \end{equation}

1144: where $V(j,\phi)$ is the fractional visibility of element $j$ at phase

1145: $\phi$ and $\sigma(\phi)$ is

1146: the error on $D(\phi)$. The above can be simplified to

1147: \begin{equation}

1148: o_{j} = p_{j} + \sigma_{j},

1149: \end{equation}

1150: where $o_{j}$ and $p_{j}$ are the observed and predicted intensities

1151: for element $j$ and $\sigma_{j}$ is the error on $o_{j}$. If we

1152: assume that the errors are normally distributed, then

1153: \begin{equation}

1154: \label{eq:probdh}

1155: P(D|h) = \prod_{j=1}^{n} (2\pi\sigma^{2}_{j})^{-\frac{1}{2}}

1156: \exp\left(\frac{-(p_{j}-o_{j})^{2}}{2\sigma^{2}_{j}}\right),

1157: \end{equation}

1158: and therefore

1159: \begin{equation}

1160: \label{eq:probdhchi}

1161: P(D|h) \propto \exp(-\chi^{2}_{\rm R}),

1162: \end{equation}

1163: where $\chi^{2}_{\rm R}$ is as defined in

1164: equation~\ref{eq:reducedchisquared}.

1165: 

1166: Equation~\ref{eq:bayes} demonstrates that to find the most probable

1167: image $h$, the probability $P(h|D)$ must be

1168: maximised. Equations~\ref{eq:probh} and \ref{eq:probdhchi} show that

1169: this is equivalent to minimising the quantity

1170: \begin{equation}

1171: \label{eq:maxent}

1172: \chi^{2}_{\rm R}-\alpha S.

1173: \end{equation}

1174: 

1175: By minimising equation~\ref{eq:maxent}, the selected solution $h$ is

1176: the one with the maximum entropy consistent within the constraints

1177: imposed by the data. No additional assumptions or biases are

1178: introduced by this method; this is the Principle of Maximum Entropy.

1179: 

1180: \subsection{Practice}

1181: \label{sec:em_practice}

1182: The development of the eclipse mapping code used in this thesis has

1183: been my own work, except for the use of the {\sc memsys} package,

1184: which was written by \citet{skilling84}. I chose to write my own

1185: eclipse mapping code in order to better understand the processes

1186: involved. I gratefully acknowledge the assistance of Dr.~Chris Watson

1187: during the early stages of development.

1188: 

1189: In this thesis, I use a simple Cartesian grid centred on the white

1190: dwarf, with the co-ordinate system as defined in

1191: \S~\ref{sec:roche_lobe}. The length of the grid side $R_{\rm{g}}$ is

1192: chosen to be of the order of or greater than the tidal radius

1193: $R_{\rm{tidal}}$ (\S~\ref{sec:gasstream},

1194: equation~\ref{eq:tidal}). The centre of the $i^{\rm{th}}$ tile is then

1195: given by

1196: \begin{subequations}

1197: \begin{equation}

1198: x(i) = \left(i-0.5-n\;{\rm aint} \left[ \frac{i-1}{n} \right] \right)

1199:   \left(\frac{2R_{\rm{g}}}{n} \right) - R_{\rm{g}}

1200: \end{equation}

1201: \begin{equation}

1202: y(i) = -\left(0.5+{\rm aint} \left[ \frac{i-1}{n} \right] \right)

1203:   \left(\frac{2R_{\rm{g}}}{n} \right) + R_{\rm{g}},

1204: \end{equation}

1205: \end{subequations}

1206: where $n$ is the number of tiles per side and `aint' denotes that its

1207: argument is truncated ({\em not\/} rounded) to an integer.

1208: 

1209: The visibility function $V(i,\phi)$ in equation~\ref{eq:datasum} is

1210: determined by use of the {\sc blink} subroutine discussed in

1211: \S~\ref{sec:derivative}. This requires computation of the Earth vector

1212: $\hat{E}$, which is the vector pointing towards Earth from the grid

1213: element in question. In the current co-ordinate system, the Earth

1214: vector is given by

1215: \begin{subequations}

1216: \begin{equation}

1217: \hat{E}_x = \cos (2\pi\phi) \sin i

1218: \end{equation}

1219: \begin{equation}

1220: \hat{E}_y = -\sin (2\pi\phi) \sin i

1221: \end{equation}

1222: \begin{equation}

1223: \hat{E}_z = \cos i .

1224: \end{equation}

1225: \end{subequations}

1226: 

1227: Using the position of the point at the centre of each tile to assess

1228: its visibility results in

1229: \begin{equation}

1230: V(i,\phi) = \left\{ \begin{array}{ll}

1231:   0 & \mbox{if eclipsed} \\

1232:   1 & \mbox{otherwise}

1233:   \end{array}

1234: \right. .

1235: \end{equation}

1236: The accuracy of the visibility function $V(i,\phi)$ can be improved by

1237: either subdividing the tiles into sub-tiles or increasing the number of

1238: tiles in the grid. In the former case, the visibility function of a

1239: given tile at a given phase, $V(i,\phi)$, is  given by the fraction of

1240: its sub-tiles that are not eclipsed at their centre at that phase. Each

1241: {\sc memsys} iteration requires computation of the intensity of each

1242: tile, so this subdivision has a computational advantage over merely

1243: increasing the number of tiles in the grid, as the visibility function

1244: $V(i,\phi)$ only has to be calculated once, at the start of the

1245: eclipse mapping procedure. As discussed below, subdivision of the

1246: tiles can also eliminate memory problems encountered when dealing with

1247: large grid sizes.

1248: 

1249: The fineness of the grid has an optimum value, equal to the distance

1250: that the projected shadow of the secondary star moves across the

1251: centre of the disc in one phase step of the light curve

1252: \citep{baptista93}. If the grid is too coarse, then we recover less

1253: information than is possible; if it is too fine, then we are

1254: attempting to fit the data in more detail than is warranted by the

1255: data, leaving room for noise to be propagated into the reconstructed

1256: maps (and it is a waste of time and effort). The optimum number of

1257: tiles per side of the grid $N$ is given by \citep{baptista93}

1258: \begin{equation}

1259: N = \frac{Ra(0.5-0.227\log q)\sin i}{R_{\rm{L1}}\tan \Delta\phi},

1260: \end{equation}

1261: where $R$ is the length of the side of the grid, $R_{\rm{L1}}$ is the

1262: distance to the inner Lagrangian point from the white dwarf and

1263: $\Delta\phi$ is the phase resolution of the data. Due to constraints

1264: on the maximum size of the arrays used in my eclipse mapping code, the

1265: maximum grid size was $77\times77$. If the optimum number of tiles was

1266: greater than this number, the tiles were subdivided, as discussed

1267: above, and the number of tiles reduced accordingly.

1268: 

1269: \subsubsection{The default map}

1270: The choice of default map has a critical impact on the quality of the

1271: reconstructions obtained \citep[see, for

1272: example][]{horne85,baptista01a}. At first glance, the most obvious

1273: choice for the default map is a uniform one. This is not, however, the

1274: best choice, as it leads to a reconstructed image that is heavily

1275: distorted by criss-crossed arcs. These result from the twin

1276: constraints on the reconstruction: the entropy and the eclipse of the

1277: disc. The maximisation of entropy means that extreme intensities are

1278: suppressed; the flux from a compact source such as the bright spot or

1279: the white dwarf is distributed over a larger area. The constraints

1280: provided by the eclipse result in the flux being spread along ingress

1281: and egress arcs that pass through the true location of the compact

1282: source, as illustrated in figure~\ref{fig:arcs}.

1283: 

1284: \begin{figure}

1285: \centerline{\includegraphics[width=12cm,angle=0]{figures/arcs.jpg}}

1286: \caption[Suppression of arcs in the reconstructed image.]{Suppression of

1287:   arcs in the reconstructed image. (a) The original accretion disc

1288:   image, with two Gaussian spots superimposed on a uniform

1289:   background. (b) The image obtained using the uniform default

1290:   map. (c) The image obtained using the default of full azimuthal

1291:   smearing. Adapted from \citet{horne85}.}

1292: \label{fig:arcs}

1293: \end{figure}

1294: 

1295: Choosing a non-uniform default map allows prior expectation of the

1296: likely disc intensity map to be included in the

1297: procedure. \citet{baptista01a} discusses some useful prescriptions for

1298: the default, listed in table~\ref{tab:defaults}.

1299: 

1300: The default $D_{j}$ usually takes the form of a weighted average of

1301: the intensities $I_{k}$ of the elements in the grid:

1302: \begin{equation}

1303: \label{eq:default}

1304: D_{j} = \frac{\sum_{k} \omega_{jk}I_{k}}{\sum_{k} \omega_{jk}},

1305: \end{equation}

1306: where $\omega_{jk}$ is the user-defined {\em weight function}. It is

1307: ultimately via the weight function that {\em a priori\/} information

1308: about the disc is included in the reconstruction. The weight function

1309: is usually defined as a Gaussian point-spread function of width

1310: $\Delta$.

1311: 

1312: \begin{table}

1313: \begin{center}

1314: \caption[Prescriptions for weight functions

1315:   $\omega_{jk}$.]{Prescriptions for weight functions

1316:   $\omega_{jk}$. $d_{jk}$ is the distance between pixels $j$ and $k$;

1317:   $R_{j}$ and $R_{k}$ are the distances of pixels $j$ and $k$ from the

1318:   origin, respectively; $\theta_{jk}$ is the azimuthal angle between

1319:   pixels $j$ and $k$; and $s_{jk}=|R_{j}\theta_{j} - R_{k}\theta_{k}|$

1320:   is the arc length between pixels $j$ and $k$. 1--5 from

1321:   \citet{baptista01a}.}

1322: \vspace{0.3cm}

1323: \small

1324: \begin{tabular}{ccc}

1325: 1) & Most uniform map & $\omega_{jk}=1$ \\\\

1326: 2) & Smoothest map &

1327: $\omega_{jk}=\exp\left(-\frac{d^{2}_{jk}}{2\Delta^{2}}\right)$ \\\\

1328: 3) & Most axi-symmetric map &

1329: $\omega_{jk}=\exp\left[-\frac{(R_{j}-R_{k})^{2}} {2\Delta^{2}_{R}}

1330:   \right]$ \\

1331:  & (full azimuthal smearing) \\

1332: 4) & Limited azimuthal smearing &

1333: $\omega_{jk}=\exp \left[-\frac{1}{2} \left\{ \left(\frac{R_{j}-R_{k}}

1334:   {\Delta_{R}} \right)^{2} + \left( \frac{\theta_{jk}}{\Delta_{\theta}}

1335:   \right)^{2} \right\} \right]$ \\

1336:  & (constant angle $\theta$) \\

1337: 5) & Limited azimuthal smearing &

1338: $\omega_{jk}=\exp\left[-\frac{1}{2} \left\{ \left(\frac{R_{j}-R_{k}}

1339:   {\Delta_{R}} \right)^{2} + \left( \frac{s_{jk}}{\Delta_{s}}

1340:   \right)^{2} \right\} \right]$ \\

1341:  & (constant arc length $s$) \\

1342: 6) & Limited azimuthal smearing & $\omega_{jk}=\exp \left[-\frac{1}{2} \left(

1343:   \frac{\theta_{jk}}{\Delta_{\theta}} \right)^{2} \right]$ \\

1344:  & (for disc rim) 

1345: \end{tabular}

1346: \normalsize

1347: \label{tab:defaults}

1348: \end{center}

1349: \end{table}

1350: 

1351: One would expect the discs in CVs to be roughly axi-symmetric since

1352: the material in the disc is, to a first approximation at least, in

1353: Keplerian orbits. By using the prescriptions for the default map given

1354: in table~\ref{tab:defaults} this expectation can be included in the

1355: default map. The effect of this is that the entropy becomes

1356: insensitive to structure on scales larger than $\Delta$. Structure on

1357: small scales  will be suppressed by the entropy, whereas large-scale

1358: structure will be freely determined by the data. This can be seen from

1359: study of the weight functions given in table~\ref{tab:defaults}. If

1360: the numerator is much smaller than $\Delta$ then the weight will be

1361: large; if the numerator is larger than the denominator $\Delta$ then

1362: the weight will be small. Figure~\ref{fig:arcs} shows the effect of

1363: the default of {\em full azimuthal smearing\/} (see

1364: table~\ref{tab:defaults}). Some remnants of the spurious arcs remain,

1365: but they are greatly reduced in amplitude.

1366: 

1367: The default of full azimuthal smearing can result in distorted

1368: reconstructions of discrete structures in the disc. For instance, the

1369: bright spot is often smeared out into a ring of the same radial

1370: distance from the white dwarf as the bright spot. In order to limit

1371: this distortion, a default map of {\em limited azimuthal smearing\/}

1372: can be used. Two methods of achieving this have been proposed: a

1373: weight function of constant angles \citep{rutten93} and a weight

1374: function of constant arc length \citep{baptista96}. The default of

1375: constant angles gives better resolution in the inner parts of the

1376: disc, whereas the default of constant arc length gives better

1377: resolution in the outer parts of the disc (see \citet{baptista01a} and

1378: figure~\ref{fig:weights}). For the data presented in this thesis, it

1379: was found that the difference between the maps reconstructed using the

1380: defaults of constant angles and constant arc length was negligible,

1381: and therefore the default used throughout this thesis was that of

1382: limited azimuthal smearing (constant angles).

1383: 

1384: A different default map was used for the disc rim to reflect its

1385: constant radial distance from the centre of the grid and to allow the

1386: rim intensity to be independent of the intensity distribution of the

1387: $(x,y)$ grid. In order to fulfil this latter criterion, the weight of

1388: each pixel in the disc rim with respect to each pixel in the $(x,y)$

1389: grid was zero, and {\em vice versa}. The default chosen for the disc

1390: rim was number 6 in table~\ref{tab:defaults}, with

1391: $\Delta_{\theta}({\rm rim})=\Delta_{\theta}({\rm disc})$.

1392: 

1393: \begin{figure}

1394: \centerline{\includegraphics[width=10cm,angle=0]{figures/weights.jpg}}

1395: \caption[The effect of different weight functions on the default

1396:   map.]{The effect of different weight functions on the default

1397:   map. (a) shows the original map, with three Gaussian spots. The

1398:   remaining panels show the default maps (note: {\em not\/} the

1399:   reconstructed maps) produced from the map illustrated in panel (a)

1400:   by applying the weight functions (see table~\ref{tab:defaults}) of

1401:   (b) full azimuthal smearing, (c) constant angle $\theta$ and (d)

1402:   constant arc length $s$. From \citet{baptista96}.}

1403: \label{fig:weights}

1404: \end{figure}

1405: 

1406: \subsubsection{The orbital hump}

1407: 

1408: The first method I attempted to use to correct for the orbital hump

1409: followed \citet{baptista00}, who fitted a spline function to phases

1410: outside eclipse, divided the light curve by the fitted spline and

1411: scaled the result to the value of the spline function at phase zero, in

1412: order to scale the light curve back to the original flux level

1413: \citep[see also][]{horne85}. This technique worked well on the light

1414: curve of IP~Peg in outburst to which \citet{baptista00} applied it,

1415: but it is not suitable for the light curves of quiescent dwarf nov\ae\

1416: which are the subject of this thesis. This is because by fitting and

1417: dividing by a spline function we assume that all parts of the

1418: accretion disc contribute equally to the anisotropic flux (the orbital

1419: hump). This is not the case: the bright spot produces anisotropic

1420: radiation, whereas the white dwarf and accretion disc do not

1421: \citep{horne85,bobinger97}.

1422: 

1423: The method I eventually employed in order to model the orbital hump

1424: was to introduce a disc rim \citep[e.g.][]{bobinger97}. This rim is

1425: assumed to be of negligible height (so that I still assume a flat

1426: disc) and is divided into $m$ segments. The visibility function

1427: $V(i,\phi)$ for the rim is given by

1428: \begin{equation}

1429: V(i,\phi) = \left\{ \begin{array}{ll}

1430:   0 & \mbox{if eclipsed} \\

1431:   0 & \mbox{if $\sin (\theta + \phi)<0$} \\

1432:   \sin^{2} (\theta + \phi)  & \mbox{otherwise}

1433:   \end{array}

1434: \right. ,

1435: \end{equation}

1436: where $\theta$ is the angle between the position on the disc rim and

1437: the positive {\em x\/}-axis, measured clockwise. The intensity of each

1438: element of the disc rim was fitted along with the intensity of each of

1439: the Cartesian grid elements, and was found to model the orbital hump

1440: very effectively. The number of elements used to model the disc rim

1441: was 50 for all the reconstructions in this thesis. This number was

1442: chosen to be high enough to effectively reproduce the orbital hump and

1443: low enough so that the orbital modulation was reasonably smooth.

1444: 

1445: \subsubsection{The contribution of the secondary star}

1446: The flux from the secondary star can have a detrimental effect on the

1447: quality of the reconstructed map. This is because the relative eclipse

1448: depth is anti-correlated with the eclipse width; any uneclipsed light

1449: breaks this anti-correlation. The additional light is placed by the

1450: maximum entropy reconstruction in the parts of the map which are

1451: constrained the least by the eclipse data, such as the parts of the

1452: accretion disc farthest from the red dwarf (the `back' of the

1453: disc). This is discussed in detail by

1454: \citet{rutten92b,rutten94a,baptista95,baptista96}. These

1455: authors find that the contribution from the secondary can be estimated

1456: by maximum entropy methods. First, the light curve can be offset by

1457: varying amounts and fitted using the usual eclipse mapping

1458: procedure. The offset which allows the largest entropy to be achieved

1459: is then the uneclipsed light. Second, and equivalently, an additional

1460: `virtual pixel' can be introduced into the grid. If the visibility

1461: function for this pixel is unity at all phases, and its weight (refer

1462: to equation~\ref{eq:default}) with respect to all the other pixels is

1463: zero, and unity with respect to itself, then from the definition of

1464: the $\chi^{2}$ statistic (equation~\ref{eq:chisquared}) the

1465: contribution of this pixel to the entropy measure is zero, and the

1466: iterative procedure to maximise the entropy proceeds as usual. The

1467: only effect of this virtual pixel on the intensities of all other

1468: pixels in the reconstruction is an offset, the magnitude of which is

1469: determined by the maximum entropy procedure itself. This method of

1470: determining the contribution from the secondary star fails for highly

1471: asymmetric accretion discs, as noted by \citet{baptista96}. The

1472: spurious structure introduced in the reconstructed map by the

1473: uneclipsed component mixes with the asymmetric (bright spot) emission,

1474: forming a more azimuthally symmetric structure in the disc. Due to the

1475: choice of an azimuthally symmetric default map, this has the effect of

1476: increasing the entropy of the reconstructed map. The map with the

1477: largest entropy value is therefore not that with the correct offset

1478: due to the presence of uneclipsed light. This problem is particularly

1479: severe in the case of the faint, short-period dwarf nov\ae\ such as

1480: XZ~Eri and DV~UMa studied in this thesis, as the disc is effectively

1481: invisible in these objects, meaning that almost all of the emission

1482: originates from the bright spot region: the disc emission is {\em

1483: highly\/} asymmetric.

1484: 

1485: I have therefore subtracted the contribution to the total light from

1486: the secondary star from the light curve prior to fitting. In the cases

1487: of XZ~Eri and DV~UMa, the secondary contribution was determined from

1488: the {\sc lfit} procedure. For all other objects, the contribution of

1489: the secondary star was first estimated from the mid-eclipse flux

1490: level, and fine-tuned by computing a series of eclipse maps with

1491: different offset values and selecting the map with the least spurious

1492: structure. These offsets are given in table ~\ref{tab:parameters}.

1493: 

1494: \subsubsection{The iterative procedure}

1495: 

1496: The {\sc memsys} code iteratively adjusts the intensities of each

1497: element $h_{j}$. The procedure begins with a uniform intensity

1498: distribution, in which each element has an intensity equal to the

1499: maximum value of the light curve divided by the total number of

1500: elements. This obviously gives a poor fit to the data. The code then

1501: iterates until the desired $\chi^{2}_{\rm R}$, known as $\chi^{2}_{\rm

1502: R,aim}$, is achieved, subsequent iterations serving to maximise the entropy

1503: while keeping $\chi^{2}_{\rm R}$ fixed. The exit criterion, which when

1504: satisfied signals that the final solution has been reached, is

1505: $TEST<10^{-3}$, where

1506: \begin{equation}

1507: \label{eq:test}

1508: TEST = \frac{1}{2}\left | \frac{\Delta \chi^{2}_{\rm R}}{|\Delta

1509:   \chi^{2}_{\rm R}|} -

1510: \frac{\Delta S}{|\Delta S|} \right |,

1511: \end{equation}

1512: provided that $|\chi^{2}_{\rm R}-\chi^{2}_{\rm R,aim}|<1$ and that the

1513: entropy during the last five iterations has not decreased by more than

1514: 0.5~per~cent. When the entropy has been maximised, $TEST$ should be

1515: zero, since in this case both $\Delta \chi^{2}_{\rm R}$ and $\Delta S$ will

1516: necessarily be small. This definition of $TEST$ is equivalent to that

1517: used internally by {\sc memsys}: $TEST=1-\cos\theta$, where $\theta$

1518: is the angle between the gradients of entropy $S$ and $\chi^{2}_{\rm R}$. The

1519: reconstructed images are those that are closest to the default map

1520: from those that are consistent with the data to $\chi^{2}_{\rm R,aim}$.

1521: 

1522: The choice of $\chi^{2}_{\rm R,aim}$ affects the properties of the

1523: reconstructed map. If too large a value is chosen, the map will not be

1524: well-constrained by the data (i.e.\ entropy will dominate), and the

1525: features present will be smeared out by the effects of the default map

1526: adopted. On the other hand, if too small a value of $\chi^{2}_{\rm

1527: R,aim}$ is used, then the reconstructed map will be noisy, with a

1528: characteristic `grainy' texture, the result of trying to fit noise in

1529: the data. Note that the optimum value $\chi^{2}_{\rm R,aim}$ is usually

1530: greater than unity due to the presence of flickering in the light

1531: curve resulting in the scatter of the data points being greater than

1532: that implied by the errors on the data points.

1533: 

1534: To perform a maximum entropy reconstruction of the accretion disc, the

1535: program was first run with $\chi^{2}_{\rm R,aim}=1$. In almost all cases

1536: this $\chi^{2}_{\rm R,aim}$ was never achieved, so the program was

1537: re-started with a value for $\chi^{2}_{\rm R,aim}$ adopted that {\em

1538: was\/} reached in the previous attempt. The reconstructed image was

1539: visually inspected, the value of $\chi^{2}_{\rm R,aim}$ adjusted and the

1540: code re-run until the resulting intensity map was judged to be

1541: `non-grainy' and the spurious arcs were minimised.

1542: 

1543: \subsubsection{Testing of the eclipse mapping code}

1544: The eclipse mapping code was tested using the data for XZ~Eri and

1545: DV~UMa described in table~\ref{tab:journal} and

1546: chapter~\ref{ch:xzeridvuma}. The positions of the white dwarf and

1547: bright spot and the absence of a significantly luminous accretion disc

1548: formed the testing criteria. The XZ~Eri and DV~UMa data were used

1549: instead of creating fake light curves due to their high quality

1550: (especially for XZ~Eri) and the fact that the system parameters were

1551: determined to a high degree of accuracy from my previous work using

1552: {\sc lfit} (see \S~\ref{sec:xzeridvuma_techniques_model}). The results

1553: of the eclipse mapping experiments are presented and discussed in

1554: subsequent chapters. For ease of reference, the parameters used in

1555: each reconstruction are given in table~\ref{tab:parameters} below.

1556: 

1557: \begin{sidewaystable}

1558: \begin{center}

1559: \caption[The parameters used in the maximum entropy reconstructions of

1560:   the disc intensities.]{The parameters used in the maximum entropy

1561:   reconstructions of the disc intensities. For each reconstruction,

1562:   the default map is number~4 with $\Delta_{\theta}=0.7$~radians and

1563:   $\Delta_{R}=0.01a$ (see table~\ref{tab:defaults}). The size of the

1564:   grid in each case is $0.6a\times0.6a$. The format of the quoted grid

1565:   dimensions is {\em x\/} tiles $\times$ {\em y\/} tiles $+$ disc rim

1566:   tiles. The tiles in the $x,y$ grid are subdivided as described in

1567:   \S~\ref{sec:em_practice}. Some light curves were rebinned by the

1568:   factor shown (using a weighted mean) in order to reduce flickering.}

1569: \vspace{0.3cm}

1570: \small

1571: \begin{tabular}{ccccccccccc}

1572: Object & Cycle & Filter & $\chi^{2}_{\rm R,aim}$ & Grid & Sub- &

1573: Iterations & Phase & Secondary & Binning & Radius of \\

1574:  & & & & dimensions & divisions & & range &

1575: (mJy) & factor & disc rim ($a$) \\

1576: \hline

1577: 

1578: XZ Eri & all & {\em u\/}$^{\prime}$ & 1.15 & 

1579:  $59\times59+50$ & 2 & 33 & all & 0.0020 & --  & 0.3 \\ 

1580:  & all & {\em g\/}$^{\prime}$ & 1.4 & 

1581:  $59\times59+50$ & 2 & 32 & all & 0.0029 & --  & 0.3 \\ 

1582:  & all & {\em r\/}$^{\prime}$ & 2.5 & 

1583:  $59\times59+50$ & 2 & 36 & all & 0.0064 & --  & 0.3 \\ 

1584: 

1585: DV UMa & all & {\em u\/}$^{\prime}$ & 1.4 & 

1586:  $71\times71+50$ & 6 & 60 & $-0.06$ to $0.13$ & 0.0027 & -- & 0.31805 \\

1587:  & all & {\em g\/}$^{\prime}$ & 1.3 & 

1588:  $71\times71+50$ & 6 & 61 & $-0.06$ to $0.13$ & 0.00531 & -- & 0.31805 \\ 

1589:  & all & {\em i\/}$^{\prime}$ & 7.0 & 

1590:  $71\times71+50$ & 6 & 87 & $-0.06$ to $0.13$ & 0.0680 & -- & 0.31805 \\ 

1591: 

1592: HT Cas & 2002 data & {\em u\/}$^{\prime}$ & 2.8 & 

1593:  $75\times75+50$ & 7 & 28 & $-0.09$ to $0.09$ & 0.15 & 3 & 0.28 \\

1594:  & 2002 data & {\em g\/}$^{\prime}$ & 24 & 

1595:  $75\times75+50$ & 7 & 29 & $-0.09$ to $0.09$ & 0.09 & 3 & 0.28 \\ 

1596:  & 2002 data & {\em i\/}$^{\prime}$ & 7 & 

1597:  $75\times75+50$ & 7 & 31 & $-0.09$ to $0.09$ & 0.32 & 0 & 0.28 \\

1598: 

1599: HT Cas & 2003 data & {\em u\/}$^{\prime}$ & 1.4 & 

1600:  $75\times75+50$ & 7 & 71 & $-0.09$ to $0.09$ & 0.24 & 3 & 0.26 \\

1601:  & 2003 data & {\em g\/}$^{\prime}$ & 15 & 

1602:  $75\times75+50$ & 7 & 74 & $-0.09$ to $0.09$ & 0.14 & 3 & 0.26 \\ 

1603:  & 2003 data & {\em i\/}$^{\prime}$ & 6 & 

1604:  $75\times75+50$ & 7 & 134 & $-0.09$ to $0.09$ & 0.42 & 3 & 0.26 \\

1605: 

1606: OU~Vir & 2002 5 18 & {\em u\/}$^{\prime}$ & 1 & 

1607:  $70\times70+50$ & 2 & 200 & $-0.06$ to $0.1$ & 0.06 & -- & 0.2315 \\

1608:  & 2002 5 18 & {\em g\/}$^{\prime}$ & 4.5 & 

1609:  $70\times70+50$ & 2 & 30 & $-0.06$ to $0.1$ & 0.06 & -- & 0.2315 \\ 

1610:  & 2002 5 18 & {\em r\/}$^{\prime}$ & 2.5 & 

1611:  $70\times70+50$ & 2 & 29 & $-0.06$ to $0.1$ & 0.11 & -- & 0.2315 \\

1612: 

1613: OU~Vir & 2003 5 22 & {\em u\/}$^{\prime}$ & 1.5 & 

1614:  $70\times70+50$ & 2 & 28 & $-0.06$ to $0.1$ & 0.04 & -- & 0.2315 \\

1615:  & 2003 5 22 & {\em g\/}$^{\prime}$ & 9 & 

1616:  $70\times70+50$ & 2 & 54 & $-0.06$ to $0.1$ & 0.024 & -- & 0.2315 \\ 

1617:  & 2003 5 22 & {\em i\/}$^{\prime}$ & 3.0 & 

1618:  $70\times70+50$ & 2 & 26 & $-0.06$ to $0.1$ & 0.09 & -- & 0.2315 \\

1619: 

1620: IR~Com & all & {\em u\/}$^{\prime}$ & 15 

1621: & $65\times65+50$ & 5 & 71 & $-0.06$ to $0.1$ & 0.27 & 2 & 0.3 \\

1622:  & all & {\em g\/}$^{\prime}$ & 250 

1623: & $65\times65+50$ & 5 & 73 & $-0.06$ to $0.1$ & 0.12 & 2 & 0.3 \\

1624:  & all & {\em i\/}$^{\prime}$ & 120 

1625: & $65\times65+50$ & 5 & 71 & $-0.06$ to $0.1$ & 0.35 & 2 & 0.3 \\

1626: 

1627: GY~Cnc & all & {\em u\/}$^{\prime}$ & 8 & 

1628: $74\times74+50$ & 9 & 49 & all & 0.35 & -- & 0.3 \\

1629:  & all & {\em g\/}$^{\prime}$ & 60 & 

1630: $74\times74+50$ & 9 & 51 & all & 0.37 & -- & 0.3 \\

1631:  & 2003 5 23 & {\em i\/}$^{\prime}$ & 11 & 

1632: $74\times74+50$ & 9 & 53 & all & 2.1 & -- & 0.3 \\

1633:  & 2003 5 19 & {\em z\/}$^{\prime}$ & 4.0 & 

1634: $74\times74+50$ & 9 & 56 & all & 2.2 & -- & 0.3 \\

1635: 

1636: \end{tabular}

1637: \normalsize

1638: \label{tab:parameters}

1639: \end{center}

1640: \end{sidewaystable}

1641: