abstract: Balloon-borne astronomy is unique in that it allows for a level of image stability, resolution, and optical backgrounds that are comparable to space-borne systems due to greatly reduced atmospheric interference, but at a fraction of the cost and over a significantly reduced development time-scale. Instruments operating within visible-to-near-UV bands ($300$ – $900$ $\upmu$m) can achieve a theoretical diffraction limited resolution of $0.01''$ from the stratosphere ($35$ – $40$ km altitude) without the need for extensive adaptive optical systems required by ground-based systems. The *Superpressure Balloon-borne Imaging Telescope* ("SuperBIT") is a wide-field imager designed to achieve 0.02$''$ stability over a 0.5$^\circ$ field-of-view, for deep single exposures of up to 5 minutes. SuperBIT is thus well-suited for many astronomical observations, from solar or extrasolar planetary observations, to resolved stellar populations and distant galaxies (whether to study their morphology, evolution, or gravitational lensing by foreground mass). We report SuperBIT's design and implementation, emphasizing its two-stage real-time stabilization: telescope stability to $1$ – $2''$ at the telescope level (a goal surpassed during a test flight in September 2015) and image stability down to $0.02''$ via an actuated tip-tilt mirror in the optical path (to be tested during a flight in 2016). The project is progressing toward a fully operational, three month flight from New Zealand by 2018.
author: L. Javier Romualdez; Steven J. Benton; Paul Clark; Christopher J. Damaren; Tim Eifler; Aurelien A. Fraisse; Mathew N. Galloway; John W. Hartley; William C. Jones; Lun Li; Leeav Lipton; Thuy Vy T. Luu; Richard J. Massey; C. Barth Netterfield; Ivan Padilla; Jason D. Rhodes; Jürgen Schmoll
bibliography: report.bib
title: The design and development of a high-resolution visible-to-near-UV telescope for balloon-borne astronomy: SuperBIT

# INTRODUCTION

## Astronomical and Cosmological Background

An inexpensive, near-space quality observing platform with instruments that can be replaced and easily upgraded has enormous potential for scientific discovery. While still in its early stages, NASA's recently developed super pressure balloon (SPB) capability can evolve into such a platform, especially in combination with high-resolution, wide-field imagers or spectrographs. The combination of diffraction limited angular resolution, extreme stability, space-like backgrounds, and long integrations enable transformative opportunities for astrophysics and cosmology.

Numerous science objectives require these capabilities and have driven a highly oversubscribed demand for UV-visible-NIR observations on the Hubble Space Telescope (HST). While JWST (James Web Space Telescope) will provide a significant improvement over HST's capabilities longward of 600nm, and other projects, such as Euclid and WFIRST (Wide-Field Infrared Survey Telescope) will provide red and NIR (Near Infrared) imaging over wide areas, the inevitable demise of HST will leave us with no space-based capabilities in the blue and UV. Even in the visible and NIR, planned missions will not begin to exhaust the demand for wide-field, high-resolution imaging. SPB based imaging and spectroscopy can potentially advance a large fraction of research topics in astronomy and cosmology including:

1.  Exoplanets: searches and classification via imaging and spectroscopy.

2.  Interstellar Physics: large-scale mapping of the interstellar medium; resolved imaging and spectroscopy of star forming regions; evolution of molecular abundances.

3.  Stars: Young-star accretion variability; simultaneous star observations in the UV and NIR; astroseismology; search for pulsars in local group; search for white dwarfs in galactic halo.

4.  Galaxies: Modified gravity constraints from galaxy morphology observations; galaxy evolution, e.g. a wide-field COSMOS survey; line-intensity mapping; study merger history and star formation triggers; study high-z galaxy morphology.

5.  Black Holes: Low-mass AGN reverberation mapping in the UV-optical-NIR; variability of AGN; Gamma Ray Burst monitoring; black hole accretion disk dynamics; high-resolution imaging of blazars (highly compact, energetic radio sources).

6.  Planetary Science: Comet water studies; UV comet imaging; wide-field survey for NEOs (Near Earth Objects); internal structure from Jupiter and Saturn via surface oscillations, study solar system moons, spectroscopy of planet atmospheres; deep imaging of Kuiper Belt Objects.

7.  Dark Energy/Dark Matter: Dark matter mapping of Active Galactic Nuclei (AGN); Strong Lensing time-delays; wide-field weak lensing to calibrate ground based shape measurements; combined imaging and spectroscopic weak lensing measurements.

8.  Galaxy Clusters: galaxy cluster lensing mass surveys; supernovae observations; precision UV/visual photometric measurements complementary to future ground and space based missions.

In the following we focus on the last two science topics. Dark Energy and Dark Matter together constitute 96% of the content of the Universe's energy density, yet their nature remains poorly understood. Wide-field astronomical surveys during the next decade have potential to explore both concepts, via statistical measurements of e.g. large-scale structure, gravitational lensing, and redshift space distortions. Amongst planned facilities, the ground-based Large Synoptic Survey Telescope (LSST) will explore a large volume of the Universe (18,000 deg$^2$ to 27.5 r-band magnitude), but will be limited by atmospheric seeing. Future space-based missions will have exquisite image quality but will be either substantially shallower or cover a smaller fraction of the sky. Euclid, which will overlap with LSST for $\sim$`<!-- -->`{=html}6000 deg$^2$, will be $\sim 2$ magnitudes shallower. WFIRST will be as deep as LSST, but its imaging will cover only 2300 deg$^2$.

Balloon observations from flights at mid-latitude (45$^\circ$ S) provide an excellent opportunity for targeted research to build on these facility surveys, or for coordinated observations to multiply their science return. The SPB platform carries a $\sim$`<!-- -->`{=html}1200 kg science instrumentation payload at an altitude of 33 km for 70–100 days. At the time of this publication, two SPB missions have successfully flown from Wanaka, New Zealand. Compared to satellites, sub-orbital missions are inexpensive and benefit from late technology freeze: allowing their science payloads to incorporate the most recent developments in e.g. detector technology and lightweight mirrors. The science return of multiple balloon flights can rival or exceed that of high-profile UV-visible space missions at around 1% of their cost.

High-resolution observations from a stable platform are especially important to control systematic errors in cosmological probes based on weak gravitational lensing (WL): e.g. cosmic shear, galaxy-galaxy lensing, cluster/filament weak lensing, void lensing. WL methods rely on accurately measuring the shapes and redshifts of large ensembles of galaxies, most of which are small and faint. Controlling uncertainties in shape and redshift measurement is difficult from the ground, due to atmospheric distortions and limitations in wavelength coverage, in particular towards the blue/UV. Even a joint Euclid, LSST, and WFIRST data set would strongly benefit from SPB imaging. First, none of these missions offers the capability for space-quality resolution blue/UV imaging. Second, Euclid's wide-field survey is too shallow to calibrate shape measurement for LSST's faintest galaxies, and WFIRST's measurements are limited to the IR, where intrinsic morphologies are different. A deep, large-area SPB survey could fill the mismatches betwen these surveys, substantially reducing systematics. A deep, targeted SPB survey could follow up regions of interest, such as merging 'bullet' clusters.

## High Precision Balloon-borne Astronomy

At an altitude of 33-40 km, the sub-orbital balloon environment is ideal for astronomy in the optical and near-UV bands due to significantly reduced atmospheric interference (see Fig. ) when compared with ground-based systems. Additionally, the dramatically reduced cost of developing and launching balloon-borne systems when compared to similar space-borne systems is an attractive incentive for astronomers and cosmologists pursuing high-resolution imaging without exorbitant cost. As a result, mass and power restrictions for stratospheric instruments are often far less stringent than typical space systems (balloon-borne payloads on the order of 2-3 metric tons are feasible) with the added benefits of recoverability and reuse-ability of the balloon-borne payload at the end-of-life.

Despite these clear advantages, balloon-borne instruments experience inherently unique challenges, which are attributed primarily to the nature of the balloon-borne environment and the launch vehicle, that are not present in typical ground or space-borne systems. Structurally, a typical stratospheric launch vehicle consists of a 1 million cubic metre helium balloon tethered to a 80-100 m long *flight train* containing the parachute and attached to the scientific payload or *gondola* through an actuated pivot connection (see Fig. ). Subsequently, the dynamic environment is quite harsh, where compound pendulative effects dominate the low frequency regime with $\sim 0.05$ Hz pendulations about the balloon connection and $\sim 1$ Hz pendulations about the pivot connection. In addition to this, torsional effects through the flight train due to a slowly varying balloon rotation and stratospheric winds induce intermittent disturbances on the gondola throughout the flight. Thermally, an ambient temperature of roughly $-50^\circ$C to $-40^\circ$C gives rise to potential difficulties with maintaining alignment of sensitive optical components, where thermal gradients across the gondola can be detrimental to the overall optical performance and stability.

In the field of balloon-borne optical astronomy, the most relevant past experiment is Stratoscope II, which was a telescope that demonstrated high pointing precision and image stability over several flights from 1967 – 1973 . Overall, Stratoscope II achieved a 0.02$^{\prime\prime}$ focal plane equivalent pointing and image stability with an image resolution of 0.2$^{\prime\prime}$ for exposures from 5 to 20 seconds using a 36 inch telescope with an effective focal ratio of $f/105.2$ at the science camera . At the time, this level of image stability was unmatched by any other optical instrument and effectively set the precedent for high precision astronomical instruments from the stratosphere. Despite its success, the Stratoscope II control architecture relied primarily on a low-gain system which compensated for stratospheric disturbances passively with occasional corrections on torque controlled axes . As a result, significant image processing post-flight was required to produce scientifically useful results at the quoted image and pointing stability, which severely limited the capabilities of the instrument. Therefore, there is precedent for the development of high-gain pointing and image stabilization systems for balloon-borne astronomy that provides on-demand and continuous correction of stratospheric disturbances for use in modern cosmological and astronomical experiments.

# BALLOON-BORNE IMAGING TELESCOPE (SUPERBIT)

The Super-pressure Balloon-borne Imaging Telescope, also known as SuperBIT, is an astronomical instrument designed to demonstrate the capabilities and performance of high-gain stability, on-demand, wide-field, visible-to-near-UV imaging from the stratosphere as a cost-effective, robust, and reusable platform for strong/weak lensing experiments as well as exo-planetary studies. As such, SuperBIT aims to provide a viable alternative to similar ground-based or space-borne systems, where the former suffers from atmospheric interference and the latter is often prohibitive in cost and development timescale. From an instrumentation perspective, SuperBIT is a 0.5 m Ritchey Cretien telescope with refractive field correction optics providing a $0.5^\circ$ field-of-view. The gondola, which houses, points, and stabilizes the telescope corrects for dynamic and pendulative disturbances with a three-axis gimbal system, which can provide telescope target acquisition to within \< $1^\prime$ and telescope stabilization to within \< $1^{\prime\prime}$ in all three axes. With additional correction from high bandwidth piezo-actuated backend optics, SuperBIT is capable of providing $0.2^{\prime\prime}$ resolution with $0.02^{\prime\prime}$ image stability over the full $0.5^\circ$ field of view with field rotation providing a maximum single exposure of over five minutes.

## Mechanical Architecture

The mechanical component of SuperBIT is a mechanism that accommodates the pointing degrees of freedom, maintains the pointing accuracy, and withstands the various suborbital forces imposed on a balloon-borne telescope. Constructed primarily out of aluminum honeycomb panels, the SuperBIT gondola (Figure ) is approximately 3 m tall from the base to the pivot joint and weighs approximately 1000 kg.

The telescope gondola has three free orthogonal axes to allow full rotational degrees of freedom. The mechanical design allows for the following ranges of pointing on the three axes – pitch, roll, and yaw. In the pitch direction, the telescope points from $20^\circ$ to $55^\circ$ from the horizon. By design, the lower bound is limited by the Earth's limb and the upper bound is determined by the angular extent of the full expansion of the helium balloon at cruise altitude. For the roll degree of freedom, the telescope must be able to rotate its view by around $\pm6^\circ$ to accommodate sky tracking over the duration of integration on the order of a few tens of minutes. Finally, the telescope is not be limited in the yaw direction as the gondola is free to rotate about the flight train axis.

In order to achieve these degrees of freedom, three gimbal frames are used to allow telescope rotation in the three independent axes – the Inner Frame, the Middle Frame, and the Outer Frame as shown in Fig. . Since the balloon is symmetric about the vertical axis, the yaw angle degree of freedom will be achieved by a pivot connecting the Outer Frame to the balloon tether. Inside the Outer Frame, the Middle Frame, is connected at the bow and stern of the Outer Frame to allow for the roll motion. And lastly, inside the Middle Frame, the Inner Frame, which rigidly holds the telescope, is connected at the port and starboard corners of the Middle Frame which allows for pitch movement. This equatorial mounting scheme accommodates all controlled degrees of freedom.

## Image Stabilization Hardware

In order to stabilize the image on the telescope focal plane to within 0.02$^{\prime\prime}$, SuperBIT makes use of specific actuation hardware to control the gimballed axes with feedback from a number of inertial and sky-fixed pointing sensors. Architecturally, target acquisition can be broken down into three increasingly refined stages: coarse target acquisition, which includes large slews to a specified RA/Dec target on the sky to within $\sim1^\prime$; fine telescope stabilization, which stabilizes the telescope and tracks the specified target to within 1$^{\prime\prime}$; and back-end image stabilization, which further stabilizes the telescope focal plane to 0.02$^{\prime\prime}$.

For coarse target acquisition, a large 16 kg$\cdot$m$^2$ reaction wheel controls gondola yaw, which roughly corresponds to telescope Az with respect to the horizon, with feedback from three fibre-optic rate gyroscopes on the telescope Inner Frame and a 3-axis magnetometer on the outer frame. In order to prevent reaction wheel saturation, a two-phase high resolution stepper motor spins the pivot at the top of the Outer Frame in order to dump momentum through the flight train to the balloon. On the gondola roll axis, a 16-bit absolute optical encoder is used to servo the Middle Frame to a desired offset roll initialization angle via two torque-controlled frameless DC motors and with rate gyroscope feedback. Lastly, the pitch axis is controlled via a dual-stage actuation scheme, where two coarse stepper motors servo the telescope frame to a desired pitch angle (corresponding roughly to telescope EL with respect to the horizon) while two additional frameless DC motors servo a pitch encoder with rate gyroscope feedback to a desired offset pitch initialization angle. Overall, the three actuated gimbal frames obtain coarse acquisition with respect to the target to within $\sim 1^\prime$ given the actuator and sensor characteristics in Tables and .

| Sensor Description | Readout Frequency (Hz) | Resolution | Noise Figure |  |
|:---|:--:|:--:|:--:|---:|
| Fibre optic rate gyroscope | 1000^a^ | $4.768\cdot 10^{-4}$ deg/s | $2.2\cdot 10^{-4}$ deg/(s$\cdot\sqrt{\mbox{Hz}}$) |  |
| Absolute optical encoder | 100 | $5.49\cdot 10^{-3}$ deg | – |  |
| 3-axis magnetometer | 20 | $6.7\cdot 10^{-5}$ Gs | $2.0\cdot 10^{-4}$ Gs |  |
| Coarse elevation stepper | 10 | $9.374\cdot 10^{-3}$ deg | – |  |
| Bore star camera | 20 | $0.23^{\prime\prime}$ centroids | $5.75\cdot {10^{-4}}^{\prime\prime}$/s^b^ |  |
| Roll star camera | 20 | $0.46^{\prime\prime}$ centroids | $5.75\cdot {10^{-4}}^{\prime\prime}$/s^b^ |  |
| Focal plane star camera | 60 | 0.025$^{\prime\prime}$ | $5.77\cdot {10^{-5}}^{\prime\prime}/\mbox{s}$^b^ |  |

SuperBIT attitude sensor characteristics

^a^ Asynchronous serial ($\pm 5\%$) remapped to synchronous 1000 Hz via Akima interpolation
^b^ Sky equivalent read noise

| Actuator Description | Control Input | Characteristics |  |
|:---|:--:|:--:|---:|
| Reaction wheel - frameless motor | 16-bit analog | 15 N$\cdot$m max.; 3600 lines/rev incremental encoder |  |
| Pitch/roll - frameless motor $\times$ 4 | 8-bit PWM^a^ | 5.0 N$\cdot$m max. torque; 3-phase Hall sensor feedback |  |
| Pivot - stepper motor | step/direction | 0.018 deg/step^b^; 2-256 μstep/step ; 0 44 N$\cdot$m hold |  |
| Pitch - stepper motor $\times$ 2 | step/direction | 0.15 deg/step^c^; 16 μstep/step ; 0 51 N$\cdot$m hold |  |
| Piezo-electric tip/tilt | 16-bit analog | $0.027^{\prime\prime}$ resolution per axis; 45 Hz bandwidth |  |

SuperBIT actuator characteristics

^a^ Pulse-Width Modulation
^b^ 1.8 deg/step motor through a 100:1 gear reducer
^c^ 1.8 deg/step motor through a 12:1 gear reducer

From this coarse state, fine telescope stabilization with respect to the target on the sky is obtained primarily from two orthogonal star cameras. These star cameras capture images of single stars at 20 Hz, and relay their pixel centroid locations to the motor control system for feedback. As shown in Table , the star cameras can centroid to sub-arcsecond accuracies, and are sensitive to stars of at least Mag 9, which gives on average 4 stars per field of view. . In addition to providing real time calibration of the gyro biases, the star cameras can also function as an absolute pointing sensor by taking degree-scale images and processing them using the "astrometry.net" suite of tools. This algorithm matches the observed star field against a database of 4-star distance patterns, and can provide an accurate position estimate in approximately two seconds on the flight computers. The feedback from both star cameras is used to stabilize the telescope via the frameless motors on the roll and pitch axes as well as the reaction wheel and pivot motor on the yaw axis. Note that coarse elevation stepper motors are not active within this level of stabilization because the granularity of the motor steps produce disturbances well above the 1$^{\prime\prime}$ level.

Once stabilized to 1$^{\prime\prime}$, the telescope back-end optics reduce the focal plane disturbances further to 0.02$^{\prime\prime}$ using a piezo-actuated tip/tilt fold mirror. High rate feedback for the tip/tilt actuator is provided by a focal plane star camera via a pick-off mirror from the primary telescope focal plane. This off-axis guider allows 60 Hz position feedback with minimal latency to the fine guidance system (FGS), and has 0.025$^{\prime\prime}$ resolution. With a diffraction limited spot size of around one pixel, the stars are oversampled and then filtered in software to increase the available centroiding precision. To compensate for potential thermal misalignment, the guide camera is affixed to a linear actuator which allows its focus to be adjusted independently of the science focal plane.

## Control Architecture

Parallel to the pointing hardware, the SuperBIT control architecture can be broken down into three increasingly refined stages with a resulting image stability on the science focal plane of approximately 0.02$^{\prime\prime}$. A simplified block diagram of the control architecture is shown in Fig. .

Firstly, to facilitate smooth motion over large slews to a given astronomical target, the coarse target acquisition control scheme is comprised of a coarse target controller that issues a trapezoidal speed profile to the gondola gimbal control such that maximum gimbal acceleration and velocity can be set. For a given RA and Dec on the sky, the coordinates are projected onto the orthogonal gimbal axes for a given local latitude, longitude, and sidereal time through a series of calibration matrices to account for gondola imbalances and misalignments (see Figure ). Since the gimbal system is capable of full three-axis target acquisition with only two coordinates specified (i.e. RA/Dec), a nominal gimbal roll angle is chosen to maximize exposure time for the specified astronomical target, which roughly correlates with a fixed image rotation (IR) or field rotation (FR) on the sky . Therefore, exposures are limited by the $\pm 6^\circ$ of the gimbal roll axis before having to reset with a different fixed field rotation for a particular target on the sky.

Once sufficient coarse target lock has been achieved (\< 1$^\prime$), coarse target acquisition control is deactivated to prevent stepper motors from causing disturbances, and the fine telescope stabilization control becomes active. Initially, target lock on the the bore sight star camera is achieved via the lost-in-space routine to determine the target acquisition error from coarse control. From this, high rate centroiding information from both roll and bore star cameras about the brightest stars in their respective fields-of-view is used to correct for coarse errors, stabilize the telescope, and track the the target to within 1$^{\prime\prime}$ ($1\sigma$). In order to ensure a high fidelity pointing solution, state estimation schemes use sensor data to estimate drifting rate gyroscope biases and to optimally combine centroiding information from both star cameras. Furthermore, the fine target controller implements globally valid gimbal torque mapping to ensure asymptotic stability during telescope stabilization and is necessary for robust control.

At this level of stability, the brightest tracking star on the focal plane star camera is used as feedback for the piezo-actuated tip-tilt fold mirror to reduce remaining disturbances up to 45 Hz down to 0.02$^{\prime\prime}$ on the science focal plane. Subsequently, full target lock is achieved and exposures for the specified target can begin. Since both telescope and image stabilization are actively and concurrently stabilizing the focal plane, leakage of high frequency resonant modes from the fine telescope control can be mitigated through selective filtering in focal plane centroid feedback, so that structural resonances in the gondola structure do not degrade image stability.

# ENGINEERING TEST FLIGHTS

## Timmins 2015 Flight

The inaugural flight of the Balloon-borne Imaging Testbed (aka. BIT) took place from September 18–19, 2015. It was launched from the Timmins Stratospheric Balloon Base in Ontario, Canada, by the Canadian Space Agency (CSA) and the Centre National d'Études Spatiales (CNES). Communications to and from the BIT gondola used a high-gain line-of-sight link, allowing for human-in-the-loop teleoperation throughout the flight. BIT remained at 36 km altitude for 6.5 hours, and was safely recovered with minimal damage, following descent by parachute.

The primary goal of this flight was to test the engineering capabilities of BIT's pointing system: in particular the telescope stabilization and pointing precision, as well as fine image stabilization of the back-end optics. It was thus designed as a proof-of-concept for SuperBIT, as well as a way to characterize system performance within the harsh dynamic and thermal environment of the upper atmosphere.

The flight schedule included several tracking runs, during which coarse target acquisition, fine telescope stabilization, and image stabilization were tested. The telescope was successfully stabilized to within $0.68^{\prime\prime}$ ($1\sigma$) over a number of 1.4 hour tracking runs, as verified by the centroid dispersion in the bore star camera in Fig. . From an attitude determination perspective, state estimator consistency agreed well with estimated pointing errors, where pointing stability was limited mostly by the rate of gyroscope integrations between star camera measurements at 3 Hz.

During several of these tracking runs, a star on the focal plane star camera was used to obtain fast feedback for additional back-end optical stabilization. During stabilization, it was discovered that telescope optics were misaligned, resulting in an asymmetric point spread function, even at optimal focus. Furthermore, it was observed that the resulting stabilized telescope environment had unexpected residual disturbances beyond the bandwidth of the piezo-electric tip-tilt fold mirror, which reduced the desired performance. Despite these shortcomings, however, back-end optical stabilization further stabilized the focal plane down to $0.12^{\prime\prime}$ ($1\sigma$) as shown in Fig. .

Overall, the 2015 Timmins flight successfully demonstrated many of BIT's engineering capabilities: esepecially the on-demand, continuous, and robust telescope pointing stability. The limitations in achieved optical performance have informed design decisions and changes required for SuperBIT. These include the need for a higher bandwidth piezo-actuator, plus in-flight calibration and actuation of optical elements.

## Palestine 2016 Flight

To improve on the optical performance from the 2015 Timmins flight, SuperBIT now includes upgrades to both hardware design and in-flight procedures. To start, a higher bandwidth piezo-electric tip-tilt actuator (\> 40 Hz) allows for a reduction of the high frequency dynamic disturbances observed in the previous flight, while allowing for more margin in the controller parameters for fine telescope stabilization. In effect, higher bandwidth correction on the focal plane allows for a greater overlap in control with the coupled fine telescope stabilization hardware such that trade-offs can be made between the two subsystems when optimizing controller gains.

A more rigorous procedure for optical alignment was also developed for the pre-flight integration. Specifically, the telescope's primary and secondary mirrors were aligned using an external monochromatic point source and parabolic collimator mirror, the shape and size of the point-spread function was characterized throughout the focal plane, and telescope collimation was verified under various operational conditions (i.e. different elevations, loading, etc.). To maintain alignment in the stratospheric environment, where thermal gradients to a $-40^\circ$C ambient temperature could degrade optical performance, a temperature controlled shroud fully encloses the telescope assembly. At the time of publication, SuperBIT is waiting for suitable weather for launch.

# OPERATIONAL FLIGHTS

## Super Pressure Balloon (SPB) Flight

SuperBIT is scheduled for a 100 day super presure balloon flight from Wanaka, New Zealand by 2018. From an engineering perspective, the improvements that are essential to maintaining SuperBIT's optimal performance over three months centre on increased autonomy and robustness of existing systems. The SuperBIT gondola must self-regulate power and thermal subsystems over day-night cycles, while preventing damage to sensitive optical components during inactivity in the day. Electronic subsystems (flight computers and memory storage elements) must be robust to cosmic rays and other errors associated with the increased radiation environment in the stratosphere. Telescope optics must maintain collimation, through autonomous aquisition and observation of bright stars or on-board metrology, followed by 6 degree of freedom actuation of the secondary mirror and a $z$-stage actuator for the focal plane star camera. Lastly, the ability and redundancy to downlink science flight data is imperative to reduce the risk of data loss either during flight or in the event that the payload is irrecoverable.

The primary scientific focus of the SuperBIT SPB flight will be to obtain high-precision weak and strong gravitational lensing measurements of $\sim$`<!-- -->`{=html}200 galaxy clusters at redshifts $0.1<z<0.5$, and their attachment to the cosmic web. SuperBIT's cluster sample is intentionally compiled from a variety of X-ray, Sunyaev-Zel'dovich and optical/NIR imaging surveys. Cross-calibration of cluster mass measurements by a single, high-precision instrument will resolve current discrepancies between cosmological tests (which may stem from foregrounds in the CMB, mis-calibration of X-ray telescopes, or previously unknown physics). The increasing number and mass of clusters towards low redshift (reflecting the gradual formation of cosmic structure) is a sensitive probe of the nature of Dark Energy. The trajectory of Dark Matter through collisions between galaxy clusters reveals the interaction properties of Dark Matter. The steady-state distrubtion of Dark Matter long after a collision reveals its interaction properties and dynamical temperature. At any time, roughly half of clusters are observed during collisions, and half are observed in a relaxed state.

## Facility Class Instrument

SuperBIT is a step toward a future platform that can accommodate facility-class instruments requiring sub-arcsecond stability for annual suborbital flights of up to 100 days in the early 2020's. Such a mission will be able to carry lightweight mirrors between 1 and 2 meters. In combination with a giga-pixel class focal plane (compared to 32MP for SuperBIT), these systems will exceed the imaging capability of HST and will play a highly flexible role among the fixed concert of Euclid, WFIRST and LSST. Below we identify some of the broad advantages of stratospheric balloon-based observations that motivate long-term development of a flexible observing platform:

#### UV photometry:

Strong UV absorption by the atmosphere makes wide-field near-UV imaging from the ground restrictively inefficient and time consuming. However, these data are critical for the accurate determination of photometric redshifts that are needed, for instance, in dark energy studies. A wide-field UV imaging survey would therefore benefit both Euclid and WFIRST. As illustrated in Fig. , observations from stratospheric altitudes suffer significantly less UV absorption and atmospheric background than from the ground. A meter-class telescope, even coupled to a modest camera, has similar survey speed to LSST in its bluest band, but at a much higher resolution (and extending to 300 nm wavelength) – allowing the terrestrial telescope to focus on the visible and near-IR.

#### Persistent, sub-arcsecond imaging:

As demonstrated by the ongoing, $8\times$ oversubscription of HST, even 25 years after its launch, many branches of astronomy exhibit a persistent need for high resolution UV/optical/IR observations. For example, observations of low-surface-brightness galaxies (and satellites of our own Milky Way) and a census of the stars within the Galaxy and nearby galaxies (galactic archaeology) would all greatly benefit from the high resolution of an optical-UV balloon-borne telescope. Exoplanet searches, such as microlensing studies of stars toward the Galactic bulge, also benefit from high-resolution imaging, over a long time baseline of observations. A balloon-borne microlensing program covering, e.g. some of the proposed WFIRST microlensing fields would not only provide added science value to that mission by stretching this baseline, but also be immune to the weather-induced losses of observations that can interrupt the critical cadence needed for these observations.

#### Technological development:

The path to developing new sensors, detectors, and instruments for space missions is difficult and expensive. Few opportunities exist to fly new technologies in a space-like environment at a reasonable cost. A facility class instrument flying regularly on the SPB platform with a relatively low launch cost, will provide a technology testbed to help ensure space qualification of components and instruments that will become the backbone of future flagship, probe, and Explorer-class space missions.

# CONCLUSIONS

Progress in many branches of cosmology and astrophysics currently relies on space-quality observations. From below the Earth's turbulent atmosphere, astronomy is limited by the blurring or blending of adjacent sources, and the misidentification of Milky Way stars with distant galaxies. Recent advances in multi-conjugate adaptive optics have helped some of the science cases that require only a narrow field-of-view. However, rising above the atmosphere will remain the only solution for science cases that require accurate knowledge of the PSF, or a wide field of view.

We report the successful demonstration of a balloon-borne telescope, BIT, flying above 99% of the Earth's atmosphere. For less than 1% the cost of an equivalent satellite, but in conjunction with advances in 'superpressure' balloon technology that recently extended flight duration from $\sim3$ days to $\sim3$ months, this offers transformative opportunities. SuperBIT is scheduled for a ultra-long duration, 100 day flight by 2018.

This is merely a first step toward an ambitious but achievable goal of facility-class 1–2 m telescopes providing hundreds of days of near space-quality imaging and spectroscopy. These missions will be a cutting edge but flexible facility, able to rapidly adapt to the most interesting science areas throughout the 2020s. Of particular interest will be the interplay of these SPB missions with large ground and space-based missions, such as Euclid, LSST, and WFIRST. As well as quickly following up currently unimagined science goals, SuperBIT's UV and high resolution complementarity offers a unique potential to enhance science return even in key research areas including exoplanets, dark energy and dark matter science.

SuperBIT is supported in Canada, via the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council (NSERC), in the USA via NASA award NNX16AF65G, and in the UK via the Royal Society and Durham University's astronomy projects grant. Part of the research was carried out at the Jet Propulsion Laboratory (JPL), California Institute of Technology (Caltech), under a contract with NASA.


abstract: We place constraints on the formation redshifts for blue globular clusters (BGCs), independent of the details of hydrodynamics and population III star formation. The observed radial distribution of BGCs in the Milky Way Galaxy suggests that they formed in biased dark matter halos at high redshift. As a result, simulations of a $\sim 1$ Mpc box up to $z\sim 10$ must resolve BGC formation in $\Lambda$CDM. We find that most halo stars could be produced from destroyed BGCs and other low-mass clusters that formed at high redshift. We present a proof-of-concept simulation that captures the formation of globular-like star clusters.
author: Aaron C. Boley, George Lake, Justin Read, & Romain Teyssier
title: Globular Cluster Formation within a Cosmological Context

# Introduction

The first stars and star clusters are responsible for the initial chemical enrichment of the universe. They are signatures of the earliest stages of galaxy formation, and their remnants may provide the seeds for supermassive black holes. The oldest known star clusters are globular clusters (GCs). In the Milky Way, their color distribution is bimodal (Zinn 1985; Harris 2009), possibly indicating two formation channels. The blue, metal-poor GCs ($\rm [Fe/H] <-1$) have a typical $\rm [Fe/H]\sim-1.5$ and the red, metal-richer ($\rm [Fe/H] > -1]$) population has a typical $\rm [Fe/H]\sim -0.5$. Blue GCs (BGCs) have chemical signatures and radial distributions that are similar to halo stars (e.g., Helmi 2008), while the red population is associated with the galactic disk and shows a clear circular velocity component. Relative age estimates show that red GCs are younger than BGCs, with an average age separation of about 1.5 Gyr between the Galactic populations (e.g., de Angeli et al. 2005). The typical GC in the Galaxy has an $M_V\sim-7.3$ (Harris 1991) and mass $M=1.4\times10^{5} M_{\odot}$, assuming a mass-to-light ratio $\Upsilon_V=2$. The dark matter content of these systems is small, if present at all (e.g., Moore 1996; Baumgardt et al. 2009).

The formation of GCs remains poorly understood (see Brodie & Strader \[2006\] for a summary). Motivated by their extreme ages, Peebles & Dicke (1968) argued for their formation shortly after recombination, preceding protogalaxy formation. The GCs are centrally concentrated in the galaxy with half of them closer to the galactic center than the Sun. In contrast, the half mass radius of the dark halo is over 10 times larger. As a result, most subsequent theoretical work has focused on producing them after the galaxy collapses. These ideas have included compression behind strong shocks (Gunn 1980) or thermal instabilities is the early protogalaxy (Fall & Rees 1985). However, these conditions could never have existed in dwarf galaxies, yet some contain BGCs (e.g., Fornax and WLM; Harris 1991). So while we reject these ideas here, they can be revived to produce the younger population of GCs in mergers (Ashman & Zepf 2001).

BGC ages remain a compelling case for formation before the collapse of the galaxy (e.g., Sarajedini et al. 2007). In this case, an alternative to explain the radial concentration is biasing owing to their early formation in rare peaks. Moore et al. (2006) showed that the radial distribution of dark matter that collapsed into halos by $z\sim12$, with mass scales $\gtrsim2.5\sigma(M,z)$, is sufficiently biased to match the radial distribution of the Galaxy's BGCs and halo stars. A few simulations have tried to capture this early formation in dwarf galaxies. Bromm & Clarke (2002) identified gas clumps with masses $\sim 10^6 M_{\odot}$ in their simulation of a proto-dwarf galaxies ($\sim 10^8 M_{\odot}$) as possible proto-GCs, while Kravtsov & Gnedin (2005) used a a subgrid model to split "cluster particles" in dwarf galaxies with $M>10^9 M_{\odot}$. However, these simulations have not yet demonstrated that GCs do form, nor why a $10^6 M_{\odot}$ cloud should form a GC at high $z$, while such clouds form associations or open clusters today.

Halo stars are also old, but their connection with BGC formation remains uncertain. These stars have abundances similar to BGCs and a consistent radial distribution (e.g., Brodie & Strader 2006; Helmi 2008). In the Galaxy, the cluster mortality rate is high (Lada & Lada 2003; Bastian & Goodwin 2006), and the destruction of BGC-like star clusters that formed could produce a substantial fraction, even all, of the halo. Fall & Zhang (2001) showed that a power law initial cluster luminosity function (ICLF), like what is seen in the Antennae (Schweizer 1987; Zhang & Fall 1999), could be shaped into the present-day globular cluster luminosity function (GCLF).

We focus on BGC formation using arguments that are independent of the details of hydrodynamics and star formation. We show that halo stars and BGCs could have a common origin; we place constraints on the epoch of halo star and BGC formation; and, we argue that simulations of a biased region of the universe, with box sizes $\sim1$ Mpc comoving, should capture BGC formation by $z\sim10$, regardless of the mechanism. In §2, we estimate the mass of the halo star population in the Milky Way Galaxy (MWG) by combining the GCLF with an ICLF. We then find the maximum redshift that BGC and halo star formation could have been completed in §3. In §4, we use radial biasing to constrain star formation efficiencies. We present in §5 a proof-of-concept simulation of the formation of star clusters at high $z$. Our conclusions are summarized in §6.

# Luminosity Functions and Mass Estimates

In this section, we calculate the total initial mass of MWG halo stars and BGCs if they formed with an Antennae-like initial cluster mass function (ICMF). The GCLF is $\Phi\propto \exp(-(V-V_0)^2/2\sigma_V^2)$, for absolute visual magnitude $V$ and turnover magnitude $V_0$. The globular cluster mass function (GCMF) can be estimated by assuming a constant mass-to-light ratio $\Upsilon_V$: $f_{\rm GC}\propto \exp(-(\mu-\mu_0)^2/2\sigma_\mu^2)$, where $\mu=\log m$ for mass $m$. We set $V_0=-7.3$ and $\sigma_V=1.2$, which is consistent with the Harris (1991) and Gnedin (1997) fits for MWG GCs. Assuming $\Upsilon_V=2$ gives $\mu_0=5.15$ and $\sigma_{\mu}=0.48$. We normalize the mass function to the Milky Way's current BGC population adopting a total number $N_{GC}\sim100$. To represent the ICMF, we follow Zhang & Fall (1999) with an ICMF $f_{SC}= m dN/dm \propto m^{-1}$. Figure 1 shows curves for $f_{GC}$ and $f_{SC}$, where $f_{SC}$ is normalized such that it osculates $f_{GC}$ at $\mu_{\rm osc}=\mu_0+2.3 \sigma_{\mu}^2$. Integrating $f_{SC}$ yields a total mass of $104 m_{\rm osc} \left( \mu_{\rm high}-\mu_{\rm low}\right)$. Including star clusters between -2 and -12 $V$, the total mass in the initial power law distribution is $2\times10^8 M_{\odot}$, compared with $\sim2\times10^7 M_{\odot}$ for the present-day BGCs.

This calculation underestimates the ICMF as even clusters with masses of $m_{\rm osc}$ will suffer destruction. Typical GC destruction rates are 0.03/Gyr are 0.1/Gyr for evaporation and evaporation+disk-shocking, respectively (Gnedin & Ostriker 1997). Assuming these are constant over 13 Gyr, the mass function is reduced by a factor of 1.5 or 4. Therefore the mass in halo stars that could be produced during BGC formation is between 3 and $8\times 10^{8} M_{\odot}$, consistent with estimates of the old stellar halo mass (e.g., Binney & Tremaine 2008).

Other authors have investigated whether the halo population could be produced by dissolved clusters. Surdin (1995) concluded that cluster dissolution could not produce the mass the entire spheroid (bulge+halo; $\sim5\times 10^{9} M_{\odot}$) (see also Ostriker & Gnedin 1997). However, the bulge population is chemically different from the stellar halo and the BGCs. The peak of the metallicity distribution in the bulge is \[Fe/H\] $\sim -0.1$ and extends to $\sim -1$ (Zoccali et al. 2003), while the halo and BGCs have peaks at \[Fe/H\] $\sim -1.6$ and extend to $\sim -3$ (Helmi 2008, Zinn 1985). Present thoughts on the bulge are that it is a pseudo-bulge formed through disk processes (see Binney 2009 for a review) and should be left out of this comparison.

Henceforth, we assume that the *halo star* population came from dissolved clusters that formed along with the present-day BGCs. It is unclear whether the Antennae-like ICMF describes star clusters at high $z$, but the detailed shape of the ICMF is not central to our argument. We only require that a distribution of clusters is produced along with the BGCs, and an Antennae ICMF gives us a fiducial model. We find a minimal extrapolated mass of $2\times10^8 M_{\odot}$. Including cluster evaporation, the mass in halo stars produced during BGC formation is consistent with 3-$8\times10^8 M_{\odot}$. Hereafter, we assume this mass to be $M_h\sim5\times10^8 M_{\odot}$, consistent with observational constraints on the MWG's stellar halo.

# Required Star Formation Efficiency

We now estimate the maximum redshift that BGC formation could have been completed by requiring enough baryons in appropriate collapsed objects to form the old stellar halo. To do so, we use the Sheth & Tormen (2002) formalism for the conditional mass function. We set the critical density for collapse $\delta_c=1.686$. The value for a density fluctuation $\delta$ for a given $z$ is determined by scaling $\delta_c$ with the growth function. The mass variance is calculated using a top-hat filter in real space. We use the Eisenstein & Hu (1998) transfer function with baryonic acoustic oscillations. The conditional mass function is integrated to find the mass in halos with $M\ge M_{\rm min}$ at $z$ in a halo of mass $M_0$ at $z_0$.

We take $M_0=10^{12} M_{\odot}$ at $z_0=0$, and assume WMAP5 cosmology ($\Omega_c=0.214$, $\Omega_b=0.044$, $\Omega_{\Lambda}=0.742$, and $h=0.719$; Hinshaw et al. 2009). The slope of the power spectrum $n=0.95$, and $\sigma_8=0.8$. The minimum mass for a halo $M_{\rm min}$ is set by the lowest mass we expect to be relevant to BGC formation. This mass must be $\gtrsim 10^6 M_{\odot}$, i.e., where we expect the first stars to form (e.g., Bromm et al. 2009). Figure 2 shows the cumulative baryon mass in collapsed objects, assuming the universal baryon fraction, for minimum dark matter halo masses of $10^6$, $10^7$, $10^8$, and $10^9 M_{\odot}$. The two thin horizontal lines show the mass fraction in baryons required to form $\sim5\times10^8 M_{\odot}$ of halo stars and BGCs, assuming a global star formation efficiency (SFE) of $\eta=1$% (top) and 10% (bottom). Reionization may well be responsible for the truncation of BGC formation (see Brodie & Strader 2006), hence we show the WMAP5 reionization redshift with gray shading in Figure 2. The plot shows that halo star and BGC formation could have been completed before reionization for SFEs $\sim10$%, if BGC formation took place in halos less massive than $10^8 M_{\odot}$. This does not mean that BGCs could not form in higher mass halos; instead, it means that they could not form exclusively in high-mass halos. Although reionization could be responsible for halting BGC formation after $z\sim10$, reionization is not central to our argument, as we shall see next.

# Radial Biasing Constraints

Diemand et al. (2005) and Moore et al. (2006) used dark matter only simulations to demonstrate that material that collapses into halos with mass scales of $\nu\gtrsim2.5$ at high redshift, where $\nu=\delta_c/\sigma(M,z)$, has a radial distribution in the $z=0$ galaxy that is consistent with the MWG halo stars' and BGCs'. We note that the characteristic mass, i.e., the knee in the Press-Schechter function, corresponds to $\nu=\sqrt{6}$ (Binney & Tremaine 2008). Using the Sheth-Tormen conditional mass function, we integrate over all halos with masses greater than $\sigma(M,z)$ for $\nu=2.5$. At $z\sim12$, this mass fraction $f_{\nu\ge2.5}\sim0.027$ (thick solid line in Figure 2). To produce the halo and BGC population from exclusively high-$\nu$ halos, the global SFE needs to be $\gtrsim 10$%. We analyzed the Diemand et al. simulation data for comparison with the Sheth-Tormen formalism. We reproduce the biasing results, so the radial distributions of halo stars and BGCs are consistent with $\nu=2.5$ halos from $z>10$. However, more collapsed objects were found in the simulations than predicted by the conditional mass function for $z\gtrsim 5$. The biased mass calculated from Sheth-Tormen may be a lower limit.

For a 10% SFE, about 10% of halo stars and BGCs could be produced by $z\sim18$. For the same SFE, the rest of the stars can be produced by $z\sim13$, 120 Myr later. The Lagrangian volume for the MWG is approximately 27 Mpc$^3$ comoving. Using these figures, we estimate the star formation rate required to form $5\times10^8 M_{\odot}$ of stars is $\sim0.15 M_{\odot}\rm ~yr^{-1}~Mpc^{-3}$. This value is similar to the observed peak in the universal star formation rate (Madau et al. 1998; 0.12-0.17 $M_{\odot}\rm ~yr^{-1}~Mpc^{-3}$ at $z\sim1.5$). If BGC formation extends to $z\sim10$, our estimate would be about a factor of two lower. Note that the universe is only about 500 Myr old by $z\sim10$; de Angeli et al. (2005) found an age spread in their low-metallicity GC sample that is less than 600 Myr and consistent with zero.

Combining our above arguments, we conclude that capturing the formation of halo stars and BGCs in $\Lambda$CDM using numerical techniques requires only a small, biased box. BGCs should form in a $\sim 1$ Mpc comoving box by $z\sim10$, regardless of the underlying process. Based on the Sheth-Tormen mass function, the simulation volume should contain three $10^8 M_{\odot}$ halos by the end redshift. If BGCs do not form in such a simulation, there is likely a problem with the subgrid model or the underlying cosmology.

# Test Simulation

## Setup

We highlight preliminary simulation results that will be presented in detail in a forthcoming paper. We employ RAMSES (Teyssier 2002), an adaptive mesh refinement cosmology code that solves the equations of hydrodynamics using a second-order unsplit Godunov method and integrates particles using particle-mesh techniques. The code has been augmented to follow nonequilibrium chemistry for a nine-species gas: e, HI, HII, HeI, HeII, HeIII, H$^{\rm -}$, H$_2$, and H$_2^+$. Cooling due to collisions between H$_2$ and the other species is modeled according to Glover & Abel (2008). The Dubois & Teyssier (2008) star formation recipe is modified to capture pop III star formation and supernova feedback. Wherever the gas number density is greater than the critical value $n_0=10^5 \rm cm^{-3}$, there is a chance to form a star particle. The local SFE is set to 1% per dynamical time.

If the metallicity of the gas is above $Z_{\rm thresh}=5\times10^{-7} Z_{\odot}$, the resulting star particle represents a distribution of population II stars. This threshold is lower than suggested by Bromm & Loeb (2003) because we wanted to explore whether very low-metallicity population II stars could form if given the opportunity. Ten percent of the star particle's mass is injected back into medium after 10 Myr as supernova ejecta, with 0.1 of the ejecta mass in metals. Below $Z_{\rm thresh}$, the particles represent a distribution of population III stars.

The IMF for population III stars remains unclear. The minimum mass may be $\gtrsim 10 M_{\odot}$ (e.g, Bromm et al. 2009), but this remains highly uncertain. Likewise, we know neither the maximum mass for a pop III star nor the importance of pair-instability supernovae to the enrichment of the second generation of stars. Tumlinson et al. (2004) argue that the observed element ratios of old pop II stars are inconsistent with enrichment by pair-instability supernovae. Moreover, the IMF shows little sensitivity to metallicity (Kroupa 2001). Whether this extends to extremely low metallicities remains unknown. In the absence of better constraints on pop III star formation, we assume a Salpeter IMF ($dN/dM\sim M^{-2.35}$) with a low-mass cutoff $M_{\rm co}$ (see below). Whenever a star particle is formed, the particle's mass $M_{\rm sp}$ is distributed among a random distribution of stars. The probability that a star is between masses $M_0$ and $M_1$ is given by $P=A(M_1^{-1.35}-M_0^{-1.35})$, where $A=(M_{\rm top}^{-1.35}-M_{\rm co}^{-1.35})^{-1}$ and $M_{\rm top}=1000 M_{\odot}$ is the most massive star in the distribution. A given star mass is selected by setting $M_{\rm star}=(r/A+M_{\rm co}^{-1.35})^{-1/1.35}$, where $r$ is a random variable with an even distribution between 0 and 1. This process continues until the total mass in stars is equal to $M_{\rm sp}$. We set $M_{\rm co}=3 M_{\odot}$, which is based on the theoretical calculations of Nakamura & Umemura (2001), who find that the smallest Jeans mass for which the gas becomes opaque to H$_2$ lines is $\sim 1 M_{\odot}$.

For each population III star in the distribution, its contribution to ejecta, metal enrichment, long-lived stars and remnants, pair-instability supernovae, and black holes is tracked (see Table 1). The remnant neutron star or black hole mass is determined, when applicable, by $M_{\rm R/BH}={\rm MAX}( M_{\rm star} 0.1^{13.5 M_{\odot}/M_{\rm star}},\ 1.35 M_{\odot} )$. This prescription roughly follows the results of Timmes et al. (1996) for population III stellar remnants. Metal enrichment is included using $Z=0.4(M_{\rm star}-13.5 M_{\odot})/M_{\rm ejecta}$ (Woosley & Weaver 1982). Whenever a supernova occurs, for either population II or III, $M_{\rm ejecta} 10^{50} {\rm erg}~M_{\odot}^{-1}$ is deposited directly into the cell containing the star.

We use a box size of 589 $h^{-1}$ kpc, and the cosmology is set to $h=0.719$, $\Omega_{\rm matter}=0.258$, $\Omega_{\Lambda}=0.742$, and $\Omega_b=0.045$. The power spectrum normalization is set to $\sigma_8=1.0$. The box size is smaller than recommended above, but it is intended to be a proof-of-concept simulation. The highest refinement at a given expansion factor $a$ is kept at a physical resolution $\Delta x_{\rm min}\sim 0.5$pc, which corresponds to refinement level $l=17$ at $z\sim13$. For dark matter particles only, the highest level of refinement used in the cloud-in-cell approximation is $l=13$ to avoid two-body relaxation effects (e.g., Knebe et al. 2000; Levine et al. 2008). The initial conditions were generated using the COSMICS package (Bertschinger 1995). The simulation box has a 256 cubed region (236 h$^{-1}$ kpc) nested within a coarser 128 cubed grid. The dark matter particle mass in the higher resolution region is about 1000 $M_{\odot}$.

## Simulation Results

Figure 3 shows maps of the average number density and temperature along the line of sight in a 360 pc cubed region at $z\sim13.3$. The region contains a $5.3\times10^6 M_{\odot}$ dark matter halo with about $10^6 M_{\odot}$ of gas within $R_{200}\sim 420$ pc. Two star clusters are present in this halo, with a combined mass $\sim 9\times10^4 M_{\odot}$. Most of this mass is in pop II stars, but about $138M_{\odot}$ is from the pop III generation, either trapped in neutron stars or in stars that will become white dwarfs. Although pop III black holes were not formed in these clusters, but some clusters in the simulation have a total black hole mass $\gtrsim 1000 M_{\odot}$. More than half of the combined mass occurred in a burst of star formation that lasted about $\sim30$ Myr. The effects of supernovae on the surrounding gas can be seen in the temperature and density plots, where bubbles have formed. The initial enrichment for the stars in Figure 3 was set by population III stars with a combined mass of $\sim190 M_{\odot}$. The final metallicity distribution is shown in the bottom-left panel, with a peak $\rm [Fe/H]\sim-1.3$, consistent with Morgan & Lake (1989). Greif et al. (2007) found that a 200 M$_{\odot}$ population III star, which did not occur in our simulation, could expel the gas from a halo, but that owes to the hard radiation from the precursor star and the extreme injection of $10^{52}$ erg. The simulation demonstrates that the formation of star clusters and their subsequent evolution can be captured from cosmological initial conditions. If these clusters survive to be called BGCs today, they represent a mode of GC formation that takes place in dark matter minihalos. This formation channel could operate until reionization limits cooling (Bromm & Clarke 2002). Cluster formation may then be delayed until massive disk galaxies form, which may be responsible for the red GC population.

# Conclusions

During BGC formation, $3\times10^8$ to $8\times 10^8 M_{\odot}$ of stars should have been produced. A large fraction, if not all, of the halo stars are remnants of destroyed BGCs and lower mass clusters that formed with BGCs. Using the conditional mass function, we found that the entire halo population could be produced by $z\sim 13$ with star formation efficiencies of $\sim10$%. Based on constraints from reionization, radial biasing, and Press-Schechter theory, we argue that a simulation of a biased, 1 Mpc comoving region of the universe should capture the formation of BGCs by $z\sim10$. If such a simulation does not capture the formation of these systems, it most likely reflects a problem in the subgrid model or cosmology. Finally, we presented a simulation that shows the formation of BGC-like clusters with masses $\sim 5\times10^4 M_{\odot}$ by $z\sim13$. These clusters form in dark matter minihalos and can self-enrich to metallicities that are consistent with observed BGCs.

This research was supported by an SNF Grant and the Zurich CTS. Simulations were run on the zbox machines, maintained by ITP UZH. We thank the anonymous referee for comments that improved this manuscript. We thank Ben Moore and Joachim Stadel for useful discussions and for making the Diemand et al. data available.

| Mass Range $M_{\odot}$ | Outcome                    | $t_{\rm SN}$ (Myr) |
|:-----------------------|:---------------------------|:-------------------|
| $<8$                   | $M_{LL}$                   | –                  |
| $8<M<25$               | $M_{LL}$, $M_{\rm ejecta}$ | 10                 |
| $25<M<35$              | $M_{BH}$, $M_{\rm ejecta}$ | 10                 |
| $35<M<140$             | $M_{BH}$                   | –                  |
| $140<M<260$            | $M_{\rm ejecta}$           | 3                  |
| $260<M$                | $M_{BH}$                   | –                  |

The mass in long-lived stars and remnants, $M_{LL}$, black holes, $M_{BH}$, and ejecta mass $M_{\rm ejecta}$. The remnant mass is determined by $M_{\rm R/BH}={\rm MAX}( M_{\rm star} 0.1^{13.5 M_{\odot}/M_{\rm star}},\ 1.35 M_{\odot} )$, which is based on the results of Timmes et al. (1996). The ejecta mass is the difference between the star's mass and its remnant. In the case of a pair-instability supernova ($140 < M<260 M_{\odot}$), the ejecta mass is the star's mass. The third column is the supernova delay time.


abstract: In this position paper, we discuss how the use of a cognitive architecture based on unsupervised clustering (the Kohonen Self-Organizing Map) enables us to meet our goals of efficient action selection in a mobile robot. This architecture provides several opportunities for human-robot interaction, and we discuss how its features facilitate these interactions.
author:
title: Associative Memories and Human-Robot Social Interaction

# Why use cognitive architectures?

## Research Context

In our research, we focus on developing, implementing, and assessing robot learning algorithms that select actions in constant time on resource-constrained mobile robot platforms. As Jeff Hawkins points out in his book *On Intelligence*, in " ... half a second, the information entering your brain can only traverse a chain one hundred neurons long. That is, the brain 'computes' solutions to problems ... in one hundred steps or fewer, regardless of how many total neurons might be involved." The key to the efficiency of action selection by the brain is that "...the brain doesn't 'compute' the answers to problems; it retrieves the answers from memory. In essence, the answers were stored in memory a long time ago. It only takes a few steps to retrieve something from memory." . As the brain itself selects actions in constant time, from our point of view it serves as a compelling source of biological inspiration for a computational cognitive architecture.

## Self-Organizing Maps

The cognitive architecture described by Claude Touzet for robot behavior learning provides a means of implementing these concepts on a mobile robot. In Touzet's formulation, the robot's memories are stored in a Self-Organizing Map (SOM) , a type of artificial neural network. Each output node is associated with a vector representing the "ideal input" for that node. The output of a SOM is determined competitively when an input vector is presented to it. Let the distance between an input vector and the ideal input for an output node be defined as the square root of the sum-of-squared-differences between the two vectors. We then say that the activated output node is the output node whose ideal input has the smallest distance to the input vector. The output nodes themselves are arranged in a Cartesian grid. On each iteration, the ideal input for the winning output node as well as its four cardinal neighbors in the grid is modified according to the following formula for each affected output node $i$ and ideal input element $j$, with learning rate $\alpha$. In Touzet's formulation of the SOM, $\alpha = 0.9$ for the winning node on a given iteration, and $\alpha = 0.4$ for its four neighbors. $$w_{ij} = w_{ij} + \alpha * (input_{ij} - w_{ij})$$

Touzet's implementation employed the distances returned by a ring of 16 ultrasonic sensors as the robot's representation of its environment. Each SOM node, then, was a vector of 16 distance values. Robot goals were expressed in the same way, as a vector of target distance values. To select an action, the robot first finds a path from the SOM node corresponding to the current input to a SOM node corresponding to the goal input. This path contains a sequence of intermediate nodes. The key is to select an action to transition to a neighboring node that is closer to the goal than the current node. To this end, a second SOM was employed for action selection. This second SOM encoded differences between pairs of input vectors, with an association between each output node and a robot action that was observed to cause the desired transition.

Each SOM has a fixed number of input nodes. This number of input nodes provides a constant upper bound on the amount of computation necessary to retrieve an action from memory to move the robot towards its goal. In light of the quotations above from Hawkins, we have a set of data structures (a cognitive architecture) that has the potential to exhibit the functionality of an aspect of human cognition. This architecture enables computation that meets the constraints of our research goals, namely, constant-time action selection based on models of the environment.

## Adaptations in our prototype

In our prototype implementation of this approach, we have made a number of changes to the original architecture. First, we have replaced the use of a second SOM by a Markov chain. As our actions are discrete, this greatly simplifies the implementation. As there is a constant bound on the number of nodes in the SOM, applying Dijkstra's algorithm to the Markov chain still matches our requirement for constant-time computation. Second, we are investigating and prototyping alternatives to the SOM for clustering inputs. The alternatives we are contemplating involve a different update cycle for the output nodes but preserve the constant-time learning update that is essential to our approach. Third, rather than using distance values as our sensory inputs, we are using images from a webcam.

# Should cognitive architectures for social interaction be inspired and/or limited by models of human cognition?

For us, the key concept for social interaction is to make available communication primitives that are both intuitive to a human and readily processed by the robot's cognitive architecture. To the extent that models of human cognition can give us insight into appropriate communication primitives, those models serve as useful inspiration.

# What are the functional requirements for a cognitive architecture to support social interaction?

Determining the functional requirements requires us to have a clear idea of how the anticipated social interactions relate to the robot's goals. In the context of our work, there are three key motivations for social interaction with a human:

1.  We would like a human to be able to give a robot goals in a reasonably natural fashion.

2.  We would like for the robot to request help from a human if it is having trouble achieving its goals.

3.  We would like a human to be able to intervene and assist a robot in achieving its goals, whether or not the robot has requested assistance.

    These motivations provide three of our functional requirements. We also include the following additional functional requirements:

4.  Interaction with a human should not be a disorienting experience for the robot. It should be able to continue with its goal-seeking behavior in a seamless manner after an interaction.

5.  The socially-obtained feedback should be readily incorporated into the ongoing action selection process.

6.  The robot should be able to switch between socially-informed and autonomously-determined actions at the granularity of a single action-selection decision cycle.

# How do these requirements inform the choice of the fundamental computational structures of the architecture?

The computational structures of the architecture described in Sections and are a good match for our functional requirements. By presenting the robot with an image, a human is able to express a goal in a way that is semantically meaningful to a human while being compatible with the data structure containing the robot's memories. This meets our first functional requirement.

In regard to our second functional requirement, the robot determines that it needs to request help from a human in two different ways:

1.  The process for identifying a path through the robot's memories produces an implicit plan. Although only the first action from the plan is used (as a new plan is generated at each decision cycle), the length of the generated plan is used to provide an estimate for the number of actions needed to achieve the goal. If the robot finds it is exceeding this estimate, it will ask for help.

2.  It is possible for the robot to find itself in a state without being able to find a path to the goal state. Ideally, appropriate training would resolve this, but it remains a live possibility as our data structures are constituted. In this situation, the robot will also ask for help.

To keep the interaction simple, the robot simply stops moving and asks for help. At this stage, we transition to handling our third functional requirement.

If the human observes that the robot needs assistance, either from its own request or from human observation, the human can give the robot commands. As our architecture is structured to give the robot a discrete set of commands (e.g. "go forward", "spin left", etc.), it is straightforward for the human to do this. The use of a Markov chain greatly simplifies these communication episodes.

When a human gives a robot a command, this command replaces the action the robot itself would have selected. On the next decision cycle, the robot resumes its original action-selection process. This is how our last three functional requirements are facilitated by our cognitive architecture.

# What is the primary outstanding challenge in developing and/or applying cognitive architectures to social HRI systems?

In our system, the social interaction is not very sophisticated. Speaking for ourselves, enabling the system to handle ambiguous feedback from a human remains an outstanding challenge. Determining the proper questions to ask a human in order to reduce the ambiguity is the key. We have not given this issue much thought in the context of our current research, although we think it could be very helpful when the robot requests help.

# What is a social interaction scenario in which current cognitive architectures would fail, and why?

The key issue for us is the ability of humans to identify and eliminate ambiguity in conversation. Imagine, for example, a robot given the command "Get me a cold drink." The cognitive architecture needs to decompose this in a manner that depends heavily on human context in general, and the context of the questioner in particular. It would need to be able to create natural-language questions to resolve ambiguities, assuming it could properly identify the ambiguities.