abstract:
author: A.M. Hidalgo-Gámez; D. Ramı́rez-Fuentes; and J. J. Gónzalez
title: Spectroscopic observations of a sample of dwarf spiral galaxies. II- Abundance gradients

The oxygen gradient of four dS galaxies has been determined using abundances for several H ii regions determined with four different methods. The gradient slopes of the three non-barred galaxies in the sample are quite steep, larger than $-0.2$ dex/kpc, while the gradient of the barred galaxy is shallower, only $-0.1$ dex/kpc. Although these gradients are quite steep they are real, following all the galaxies the same trend. Moreover, the results obtained here agree with those marked by the late-type, non-dwarf spirals, particularly the relationship between the gradient and the absolute magnitude and the optical size for non-barred galaxies, and the surface density for barred ones.

# Introduction

The existence of differences in the chemical abundances along the galactocentric distance is a well known characteristic of spiral galaxies (see, among others, the works of Searle 1971 as well as Dı́az 1989; Zaritsky et al. 1989; Walsh & Roy 1989; Vila-Costas & Edmunds 1992). Normally, the central regions exhibit higher abundances than those located at the outskirts. Such gradients, both nebular and stellar, have been obtained for our Galaxy (e.g. Edvardsson 2001 and references therein), but not without controversy (Fu et al. 2009).

The gradients in metallicity are probably the results of billions of years of evolution. As the chemical elements are processed in the interior of the stars, such abundance gradients can be related to the gas mass fraction and the star formation rate in the disc of spiral galaxies (Phillips & Edmunds 1991) or to variations in the Initial Mass Function (Güsten & Mezger 1982). They also could be related with the yield if the closed-box model is considered. A constant yield might give variations in the gas fraction, and vice versa (J. Vı́lchez, 2010 private communication).

Several investigations studied the dependence of the gradient with different properties of the galaxies, such as the morphological type, the absolute magnitude and the rotation velocity (e.g. Zaritsky et al. 1994; Vila-Costas & Edmunds 1992). The main conclusion of these investigations is that gradients in non-barred galaxies seem to be related to the mass surface density and to the morphological type (late-type galaxies have steeper gradients than early-types) while the central abundance are correlated with the galaxy mass. For barred galaxies the gradients seem to be related to the length of the bar compared to the size of the disc and to the ellipticity (Martin & Roy 1994). In addition, barred galaxies seem to show a flatter gradient than the non-barred ones (Pagel et al. 1979; Alloin et al. 1981) for all morphological types. Again, this is not without controversy, because other authors measured large gradients in barred galaxies (Martin & Roy 1994).

The relation obtained by Zaritsky et al. (1994) between the gradient and the morphological type is quite interesting in the sense that it might indicate that H ii regions in galaxies of later morphological types, as Sm and Im, should have important differences in metallicity. A similar conclusion was held also by Kunth & Roy (1996), where they discussed the smoothening of the gradients due to the shear in spiral galaxies, while irregular galaxies, because of their lack of internal movements, might keep their local enrichments. This is contrary to observations, where no significant variations are found in the chemical abundances among the irregular galaxies but only nitrogen local enrichment by Wolf-Rayet stars (see Kobulnicky & Skillman 1997) and only very few galaxies show differences in the abundances larger than $1\sigma$ (Hidalgo-Gámez et al. 2001). There are several reasons for the rejection of the possible existence of metallicity gradients in irregular galaxies. The use of the semi-empirical methods in the abundance determination, the large uncertainties in the metallicity values, the small size of the galaxies, etc, have been given for the non acceptance of differences in the metal content throughout an irregular galaxy (e.g. Pilyugin 2001). A recent example is the Local irregular galaxy IC 10, for which Magrini & Goncalves (2009) obtained differences in the oxygen abundance as large as $0.6$ dex but they still said that "there is no indications of radial gradients´´. Therefore, there is no irregular galaxy with an accepted gradient or variations in the oxygen abundance. On the contrary, there are several dozens of spiral galaxies where abundance gradients have been determined, some of them as small as $-0.01$ dex/kpc. The main reason argued for the acceptance of such small gradients is the large size of the spiral galaxies, most of the time larger than $10$ kpc. Therefore, although the gradient is small, it gives an important difference between the central part and the outskirts of a certain galaxy. In addition to this situation, there are low-mass, spiral galaxies which does not show any difference in the abundance among the Hii regions. The best studied one is NGC 1313 (Walsh & Roy 1997). Mollá & Roy (1999) concluded that the absence of oxygen gradient in NGC 1313 is due to its low mass, which resembles irregular galaxies. To our concern, NGC 1313 is the only late-type spiral galaxy with no gradient, and therefore unique. If a large population of spiral galaxies with no gradient are found they will be the transition between the normal late-type Sm with larger gradient, as suggested by Zaritsky et al. (1994), and the Im galaxies with no gradients.

The main goal of the present investigation is to check if there are any other late-type, low-mass, spiral galaxy without a metallicity gradient. The abundance gradient of four dwarf spiral (dS) galaxies have been determined in order to check if their gradients increase with the morphological type, as suggested by the relationship by Zaristky et al. (1994) or, on the contrary, they got shallower approaching the distribution abundance in irregular galaxies. All the galaxies in the sample are of low mass, both total and gas, low luminosity and small size, very similar to the characteristics of NGC 1313. Moreover, their H ii regions are extended and their inclinations are not excessive. none of them have previous spectroscopic studies. For more details about the galaxies in the sample, the reader is referred to Hidalgo-Gámez et al. (AJ, submitted; hereafter paper I).

In the next section, the determination of the chemical abundance gradients for each of the four galaxies in the sample is presented. In Section 3, a discussion on the accuracy of the values is given. The relationship between these gradients and other global parameters of the galaxies is also discussed. Brief conclusions are presented in Section 4.

# Gradient abundances in dwarf spiral galaxies

A total of $29$ H ii regions in four dS galaxies were studied in a previous paper (Hidalgo-Gámez et al. AJ submitted; hereafter paper I). Two of the galaxies, UGC 5242 and UGC 5296, have a small number of regions while for the other two, UGC 6205 and UGC 6377, the number of regions are larger, of the order of $10$. Although the number of H ii regions detected in these galaxies is much smaller than in other spiral galaxies, they agree with the observation in other dS galaxies (Hidalgo-Gámez 2005; Reyes-Pérez 2009). The gas mass of all of the galaxies under study is small, about 10$^9$ M$\odot$ (Hidalgo-Gámez, unpublished), and similar to the gas content that the low-mass, late-type spiral NGC 1313 (Walsh & Roy 1996). This galaxy, however is brighter but with a similar chaotic spiral structure than those studied here.

Two observables are needed in order to determine the abundance gradient: the galactocentric distance of each H ii and its chemical abundance. In order to obtain a proper distance from the center of the galaxy to the H ii regions a zero point should be considered. This could be photometric (the place with the maximum surface brightness) or dynamical (the place with the lowest rotation velocity). In the present investigation, the first one is considered. From $V$ and $R$ images (obtained by one of the authors at the 1.5m telescope of San Pedro Mártir-OAN) a photometric center of the galaxy was determined. To identify the H ii regions, H$\alpha$ images of each galaxy were compared with the images from the acquisition camera except for UGC 6277 for which no H$\alpha$ image was available. Due to the low number of H ii regions in this galaxies this was an easy task. Only in UGC 6377, because the lack of the H$\alpha$ image, there might be some problems i n the identification. Once the H ii regions were identified, the H$\alpha$ images were compared with the $V$ and $R$ ones, in order to determine the photometric center in the H$\alpha$ image. A distance was obtained considering the pixel sizes of every CCD involved and the distance to the galaxy, which might be the greatest source of uncertainties. Inclination corrections for each galaxy were applied, using the values tabulated by NED at the $25$ mag arcsec$^2$.

The abundances of the H ii regions studied here were determined in paper I. Here, a brief summary of the values are given but the reader is referred to paper I for details. In one H ii region, the forbidden oxygen line at 4363Å  is detected and, therefore the standard method, as described in e.g. Osterbrock 1989, can be used to determine the chemical abundances. In the other H ii regions, the semi empirical methods are needed. A total of four different semi empirical methods are used. The results are that the abundances are in the range between $8.6$ and $7.7$ dex for most of the H ii regions. For a study of the feasibility of the semi empirical methods the reader is referred to Hidalgo-Gámez & Ramı́rez-Fuentes (2009).

In order to study as carefully as possible the gradients in these four galaxies, a gradient value will be determined with each set of abundances obtained in paper I: the R$_{23}$, the $P$, the N$2$, the N$3$ and the average abundances. In addition, a comparison among the values determined with each method will be done. This is very interesting because it is believe the bending of the slope observed in some galaxies, as M101 (Zaritsky 1992), is due to an artifact´s in the metallicity determination (Pilyugin 2003).

As discussed in paper I, each method has its own advantages and drawbacks: the R$_{23}$ and $P$ used a larger number of H ii regions whereas only those H ii regions with the highest S/N are used the $N2$ and $N3$ methods. The gradients will be obtained from a least-square fitting to all the abundance values determined for the H ii regions for each galaxy. A more robust value of the slope could be obtained from a bi-variate fitting: first considering the galactocentric distance as independent and then treating the abundances as the independent variable (Elmergreen et al. 1996). The fitted slope and constant are a combination of the values for each single fitting. However, in this study a single square-fitting has been used because it provides a simple and quick comparison with other investigations. In this statistical approach the inclusion of one single odd point might lead to an important change in the slope and do not reflect the real tendencies (Vila-Co stas & Edmunds 1992). Therefore, and in addition to this mathematical value of the gradient, we have also considered the differences between the innermost and outermost regions (I/O in Table 1) in each galaxy as well as between the most and less metallic ones (L/M in Table 1). Finally, a gradient can be obtained when averaging all the abundances from all the H ii regions located in a certain range of distance from the center. Therefore, a single abundance is obtained for a single galactocentric distance. The advantage of this last determination is that the possible odd abundances or uncertainties in the galactocentric distance are smoothed out. We advance that the agreement among all the values of the slopes/gradients is remarkable for most of the galaxies.

As said, two galaxies have a very small number of H ii regions detected and therefore, the gradient values determined might be not very reliable. Indeed, for UGC 5296 and UGC 5242 the total number of H ii regions is much smaller than the minimum number of data-points needed for a reliable gradient determination according to Dutiful & Roy (1996). There are only five H ii regions in UGC 5296 (Réyes-Pérez 2009) and about eight in UGC 5242 (Hidalgo-Gámez, in preparation). Therefore, we are aware that the gradient values for these galaxies are less confident than for the rest of the sample. Nevertheless, there are some other galaxies where a gradient is determined from only $4$ regions, as NGC 3351, NGC 5068 and NGC 4395 (Vila-Costas & Edmunds 1992).

## UGC 6205

UGC 6205 is the galaxy with the largest number of H ii regions detected in our sample: a total of $11$ regions were studied in this investigation. The gradient determined with the semi empirical methods are shown in the first column of Table 1. Also, the values determined using the most and less metallic regions, as well as the most internal and external ones are presented in rows 6 and 7, respectively. Finally, the slope from the averaged distances is presented in row 8 (See below). If the three latter values of the gradients are similar to those obtained with the least-squared fitting might indicate the robustness of the determination. This is the situation for UGC 6205, with all the values of the gradients ranging from $-0.2$ to $-0.4$ dex/kpc. An average value of $-0.31$ dex/kpc with a dispersion of $0.03$ will be considered.

Another remarkable results presented in Table 1 is the steepness of the gradient, being larger than the values obtained for most of the galaxies studied so far (e.g. see Table 4 in Vila-Costas & Edmunds 1992). Why? One might think that this galaxy shows very extreme abundance values, but the most external region, located at 3.1 kpc, has a metallicity of $7.7$ dex while the most internal regions have metallicities of $8.7$ dex. The difference is only of $1$ dex, which is not so large. There are other spiral galaxies with such difference in their abundances, or larger, as M81 (Garnett & Shields 1987). The point here is that M81 is very much larger than UGC 6205. So, UGC 6205 has the same difference in the abundance than other galaxies but the galactocentric distances of the H ii are smaller. Therefore, so large gradient.

The next question to be addressed is which is the region responsible for such a steep gradient. One might think that those regions with low S/N are responsible for the slope because their abundance value might not be so reliable. This is not true for several reasons: firstly, the gradients obtained with the $N2$ and $N3$ methods, which included only those high S/N regions, give only slightly shallower gradients. Moreover, the values determined without the least-squared fitting are of the same order except when the gradient is determined from the most and less metallic regions which is of $-1.1$ dex/kpc, and it will be ignored because of its doubtful meaning.

Another way to check the reliability of the steep gradient, is, as previously said, using an average abundance for different ranges of galactocentric distances: $0$-$0.6$ kpc, $0.6$-$1.2$ kpc, $1.2$-$1.8$ kpc, $1.8$-$2.4$ kpc, $2.4$-$3.0$ kpc, and $3.0$-$3.600$ kpc. As said, the variations of the abundance are smoothed and the low S/N regions will not be the responsible of the value of the gradient. These are shown in the eighth row of Table 1 and it is about $-0.3$ dex/kpc for this galaxy. Whatever the method is used for the gradient determination, will end up in a very high value. Then, it can be concluded that such value might be real.

Figure   shows the metallicity vs. the galactocentric radius, in kpc, for each of the five metallicity determinations. The errorbars in the metallicity and in the galactocentric distances are shown but the latter are smaller than the symbol. The solid line is the fitting using all the H ii regions. The fitting is, in general, very good with all the methods except for regions U05a1, U05c1, and U05b5 which have odd abundance values for their galactocentric distances. If those regions are not considered, the gradients do not change significantly.

It can be noticed in figure   that the gradient seems to change along the radius of the galaxy, with a plateau for radii up to $1.6$ kpc, whatever method is used for the abundance determination. This is motivated mainly because the high metallicity of regions U05c1 and U05a1, which as stood in paper I, they might be something more than simply H ii regions. In any case, an internal (r $<$ 1.4 kpc) and external gradients were determined without these three anomalous regions, and no differences were found.

It can be concluded that the gradient in this small spiral galaxy is very steep, of about $-0.3$ dex/kpc, with no dependence on the metallicity method and no differences along the galactocentric distance.

## UGC 6377

As mentioned in paper I, two of the nine H ii regions in this galaxy have abnormal abundances and they might be planetary nebulae instead of normal H ii regions. Therefore, they are not going to be considered in the determination of the gradients. We will use the other seven regions in order to obtain the gradient. The values from the $N2$ and $N3$ abundances have only two regions and they are located very close each other, thus no reliable values can be obtained. The values of the slopes are shown in the second column of Table 1. It can be seen that the $R_{23}$, the $P$ method and the average abundance gradients are very similar, from $-0.15$ to $-0.20$ dex/kpc. Also, those values are very similar to the slopes determined from the most external/internal regions, with values ranging from $-0.16$ to $-0.13$ dex/kpc. The slopes determined from the most/less metallic regions are larger, of the order of $-0.3$ dex/kpc. The main reason is that the less metallic region, U77c3, is not the most external one. The abundance differences in UGC 6377 are lower than for UGC 6205, only $0.8$ dex, but the distances considered are also smaller, only $2.4$ kpc. Therefore, the gradients are also quite large.

A reason for such steep slopes are needed. Similarly as in UGC 6205, one might think that the low S/N regions are changing the slope. Only three of the seven H ii regions used are of high S/N. When only those three are used (with all the caution due to the low number of data-points) the gradient is $-0.11$ dex/kpc, which is more similar to other late-type spirals galaxies (see next section). Another way to check the influence of the low S/N regions is using an averaged metallicity value for certain distance ranges, as for UGC 6205. In this case, those regions with low S/N are not so critical. The distance ranges were $0$-$0.6$ kpc, $0.6$-$1.2$ kpc, $1.2$-$1.8$ kpc, and $1.8$-$2.4$ kpc. The slope in this case is of the order of $-0.23$ dex/kpc. The (weighted) mean gradient is of $-0.2$ dex/kpc, with a dispersion of $0.02$.

Figure   shows the plot of the metallicity vs. the galactocentric distance along with the fitting for all the metallicity methods for which a gradient has been determined. The fitting is very good for all the cases.

From a close inspection of Figure  , one might say that there is a change in the slope of the gradient, being steeper for the internal regions than for the external ones. This situation has been observed in other galaxies such as M101 (Zaritsky 1992) or NGC 2403 (Garnett et al. 1999). Pilyugin (2003) has argued that such bends in the slope of the abundances are artifacts in the abundance determinations. This explanation is not valid here because the flattening of the slope is observed when the abundances are determined with the $P$ method. Considering only those regions most internal than $1.2$ kpc, the gradient is quite steep, of about $-0.35$ dex/kpc, while the value determined with the outer regions is almost flat. This situation is forced by the abundance of U77c1, which is the most external region but its abundance is high. Without this region, the outer gradient is of the order of $-0.15$ dex/kpc and the difference with the internal regions is not that high.

Finally, we will discuss about the abundances of U05a1 and U05b1. They have very high abundances for their galactocentric distances. If the low abundance values are considered instead of the high branch ones, they both fit very well the gradient determined by the rest of the data-points. Actually, the value of the gradient does not change at all. So, as concluded in paper I, they are likely PNs embedded in low metallicity H ii regions.

## UGC 5296

There are only four H ii regions for gradient determination in this tiny galaxy. One might think that no gradient can be determined with such a few number of data-points. But there are at least another three galaxies with values determined with only four metallicity determination. Nevertheless, the confidence of the gradient obtained is not as good as for the two galaxies previously studied.

The H ii regions observed in UGC 5296 are located in a line from south to north. For each of these regions, two set of intensities are obtained, as explained in paper I. For those lines obtained from ALICE-MIDAS, the gradient with the $N2$ and $N3$ methods cannot be determined because only two regions are considered. Moreover, the slopes determined with $N2$ and $N3$ VISTA-abundances are positive. This is an indication that the VISTA nitrogen intensities are not very trustworthy. Therefore, no further consideration will be given to those abundances and gradients and only the $P$- and $R_{23}$-abundances determinations will be discussed.

In order to obtain a more reliable determination of the gradient, a single value of the abundances is obtained for each H ii region by averaging the values from the VISTA data-set and the ALICE-MIDAS one. This can be done because the abundances between these two data-set are very similar. The gradients determined in this way are shown in column 3 of Table 1 and in Figure  . The value from the average abundance is $-0.6$ dex/kpc, which is quite unrealistic as well as those determined from the $R{23}$ and $P$ methods which are even steeper. The reason for such a steep value is the large difference in metallicity among the internal and the external regions in this galaxy, $1.2$ dex, and the small galactocentric distance range, $2$ kpc. Although a gradient at fixed distance has little sense because it will be determined with only two regions, it is useful because it shows that the abundances change dramatically, from $8.5$ dex at the center to $7.7$ dex at the o utskirts.

The slope derived using the more/less metallic regions is $-0.6$ dex/kpc while the value using the out most/inmost regions is $-0.3$ dex/kpc. These values are similar to those determined with the mathematical fitting. This is because U96a2 is probably over enriched as discussed in paper I. Such enrichment does not force the steep gradient, because a value of $-0.52$ dex/kpc is obtained without this region. One might think that region U56a1, with its very low metallicity, is forcing such steep gradient. Actually, the $R_{23}$ and $P$ gradients do not change when this region is not considered. On the contrary, the average metallicity gradient does shallow mainly due to the higher abundances for U96a4.

Values as large as $-0.6$ dex/kpc are not acceptable because they are quite unrealistic. The value of the gradient adopted for this galaxy is $-0.4$ dex/kpc, as stated in Table 1. The dispersion is about $0.1$. Such gradient is large but similar to the one of UGC 6205. From the results of the averaged distances determination discussed above, it can be concluded there is a real, and large, change in the abundances of this galaxy. Such differences cannot be explained by differences in the SFR (Réyes-Pérez 2009). Finally, it is important to point out that a more accurate determination of the gradient will be very difficult, because there is only one more H ii region in the galaxy. In any case, more high quality data are needed in order to confirm these results.

## UGC 5242

The number of H ii regions is also small in this barred galaxy, but for the same reasons as for UGC 5296, a gradient will be determined. Moreover, as being the only barred galaxy in our sample, it will be very interesting to know if the gradient is similar to the other barred late-type galaxies. The oxygen abundances can be determined for only five regions. Also, as for UGC 5296, there are two set of data for each region. Therefore, a total of eight different estimations of the gradient can be obtained for this galaxy. Those values determined with the ALICE-MIDAS abundances are very similar, but those obtained from the VISTA abundances are not. Two of them are positive. The best way to proceed is, just as in UGC 5296, to determine an average abundance for each H ii region from those obtained with ALICE-MIDAS and with VISTA data-set of intensities. In this case, the values of the gradient vary from $-0.006$ dex/kpc to $-0.18$ dex/kpc (see Table 1). These values a re slightly larger than those determined for other barred late-type galaxies.

Again, the values of the slope obtained with the most/less external regions are very similar to those obtained with the fitting. On the contrary, the slope determined from the most/less metallic regions are very large. This value could not be realistic and the main reason for such a steep gradient is that the less metallic region, U42c2, is not the most external one. The differences in abundances between the regions is of almost $0.5$ dex but with less than $1$ kpc in separation. Moreover, the most metallic region has the lowest S/N. When another region is considered, a gradient of $-0.15$ dex/kpc is obtained, which is more similar to the rest of the values.

Although it should be taken with care due to the small number of region involved, a metallicity at averaged distances can be obtained as well as a gradient. Values from $-0.02$ to $-0.14$ dex/kpc are obtained, which are only slightly smaller than those obtained with all the regions. An average gradient of $-0.17$ is obtained from all the values in Table 1, with a dispersion of $0.06$.

# Discussion

## How accurate these gradients are?

In a investigation like this there could be a lot of sources of uncertainties. Some of them could be related to uncertainties in the distance determination to the galaxy itself. Normally, distances are very difficult to obtain when no primary candles are considered. This is the case for all the galaxies in this sample. The distance used here were those from Hidalgo-Gámez (2004), normally based on secondary indicators. Distance determinations can change the value of the gradient if the new determination differs greatly from the old one. In general, the distances provided by NED/NASA are very similar to those reported in Hidalgo-Gámez (2004) for the galaxies in the sample. The only important difference is on the distance of UGC 5296, and the gradient changes from $-0.6$ dex/kpc to $-0.45$ dex/kpc, meanwhile for the rest of the galaxies the differences in the gradient determination are smaller than the uncertainties. Therefore, the steep gradients in these galaxies are not due to wrong distance determinations. Also, the galactocentric distances might have influence on the slope of the abundance, but not in this case as indicated by the results of the gradient determined at fixed distances.

Probably, the largest source of uncertainty in the slopes obtained in this investigation is the abundance determination. As they cannot be calculated with the standard method (e.g. Osterbrock 1989), the abundance value itself might be very uncertain. As described in paper I, four different semi empirical methods were used in the abundance determination. Moreover, a weighted-average value of the abundance was obtained for each region. Therefore, the gradients determined with such metallicity should be very reliable. Moreover, those regions which are suspected not to be a normal H ii region are not considered in the gradient determination, as in UGC 6377. There are some regions in UGC 6205, as U05b4 and U05c3, which were considered of high metallicity despite the small value of the log(N/O) ratio (section 3.2 in paper I). Nevertheless, there is not change in the slope because they are located at the intermediate part of the galaxy, and therefore their inclusion is not cru cial. As discussed in paper I, despite the uncertainties in the metallicity determination, it is not quite likely that a high metallicity region was misclassified as of low metallicity one.

Another source of uncertainty might be the low number of measurements for the determination of the gradient. Dutil & Roy (2001) said that in order to obtain a robust measurement of the gradient at least $16$ data-points are needed. This is an impossible achievement for the dwarf spiral galaxies, mainly because most of them do not have such a large number of H ii regions. From the study of Reyes-Pérez (2009) and the H$\alpha$ images obtained for two dozens of dS galaxies by Hidalgo-Gámez, it can be concluded that less than $10$ dwarf spirals out of more than $100$ have more than $15$ H ii regions. In particular, all the regions were studied for UGC 6205 while only one and two more exist for UGC 5296 and UGC 5242, respectively (Reyes-Pérez & Hidalgo-Gámez, in preparation). Therefore, the results here should be taken with care because of the small number of data-points, but it has to be understood that there are no more regions to be used. Finally, it has to be said that the gradients determined for another 11 galaxies in the literature were determined with only five measurements or less (see table 4 in Vila-Costas & Edmunds 1992).

Dutil & Roy (2001) also said that not only the slope is uncertain due to the poor sampling, but also the gradient might change when more data-points are added. This can be studied here comparing the gradients determined with the $R_{23}$ or the $P$ methods and those determined with the $N_2$ or $N_3$ ones, because the number of H ii regions involved are different, being the latter much lower. The best galaxy is UGC 6205 because the number of abundance determinations are not low even with the $N_2$ and $N_3$ methods. In Table 1 it could be seen that there are differences in the gradient if determined with $11$ measurements or with four, but they are small. One might think that this is the situation for both UGC 5296 and UGC 5242 in the sense that there are important differences in the gradients determined with the different methods. For these galaxies the number of data-points are the same with both methods and it is a problem of false nitrogen detections. Therefore, it can be concluded that none of the possible source of uncertainties have a real influence on the gradient of the abundances.

A final criticism that can be made to the data presented here is that as the abundances are determined with few lines, they might be not very reliable. This should be always taken into account when working with these galaxies, as well as with other galaxies for which the abundances have been determined from the \[OIII\]/\[NII\] or the \[NII\]/H$\alpha$ ratios, in the local Universe (e.g. Roy et al. 1996) or for high $z$ galaxies (e.g. Schulte-Ladbeck et al. 2004). As can be seen from Table 1 the value of the gradients are, in general, very similar for each galaxy when the abundances are determined with different methods. Moreover, the values determined with the less/most metallic regions or the internal/external regions are also very similar to those determined from the least-squared fitting. Therefore, we think that, although the abundances for some particular regions can be somehow uncertain, the gradients obtained here are very robust.

## How real these gradients are?

There are few tests that can be done in order to see if the values obtained here are real or due to some artifacts related to the uncertainties in the abundance determinations. The first one is to determine the gradient, if any, in the \[OIII\]/H$\beta$ ratio. Differences in this ratio were detected in the pioneering work of Searle (1971). Actually, he considered that those were due to differences in the abundances instead of in the excitation. This is shown in Figure   for those non-barred galaxies in the sample. Along with the data-points and their errorbars, the least-squared fitting is shown (solid line). Only UGC 6205 shows a positive, and steep, gradient (larger ionisation for the most external regions). The dotted lines show the locus where the data-points can be located if the line intensities change by their uncertainties. All but two regions lay inside these lines. On the contrary, UGC 6377 shows a very unexpected behaviour, with a negative and steep gradien t. This is due to the high ionisation of U77b2, and the low ionisation of U77a1, both with low S/N. Considering only those H ii regions with medium and high S/N, the gradient is positive and very steep, of $-0.53$ dex/kpc, which is shown by the dashed line. Finally, the excitation gradient is almost flat for UGC 5296 (0.11 dex/kpc), with a high value for the most internal region and a low excitation for U96a1. The other gradient that can be determined is the \[NII\]/H$\alpha$ ratio. The only galaxy for which is it meaningful is UGC 6205. The nitrogen gradient is also very steep in UGC 6205, of $-0.44$ dex/kpc. From both line ratios, it can be concluded that the oxygen gradients determined are real, especially for UGC 6205 for which both ratios give very steep gradients.

Finally, a total gradient for non-barred dwarf spiral galaxies can be determined. Figure  a shows the abundances, from the average values, vs. the optical radius, in kiloparsecs, for the three galaxies studied here while the average abundances at a fixed distance for all the H ii regions of the three non-barred galaxies is shown in figure  b. Those regions which are not considered in the gradient determination for a particular galaxy are also not considered in the fitting here but they are shown for completeness. Although the dispersion is large, particularly at intermediate distance, the gradient is also very steep, of $-0.3$ dex/kpc. Figure  c shows the same abundances but to the normalised distance (r/r$_{25}$). In this case, the slope of the fitting is the same, $-0.3$. Two important conclusions can be obtained from this figure. Firstly, the H ii regions of three dS galaxies are non-distinguishable in the plots, in the sense that all of them have the largest metallicity for the central regions and the lowest for the most external ones. This is more clear in figure  c, with a very low dispersion. The second conclusion is that these three dS galaxies have an steep abundance gradient, being the gradient obtained from the abundances at a averaged distance, show in figure  b, the most robust. Therefore, it seems that the oxygen gradient for dwarf late-type spiral galaxies might be larger than for their normal-size counterpart. A larger sample of dwarf spiral galaxies are needed for a more conclusive result.

## Is there any dependence of the gradient with other parameters?

Vila-Costas & Edmunds (1992) found out that the gradient is related with the total mass of the galaxy for non-barred galaxies and any morphological type. They also obtained correlations with the absolute magnitude, when all the morphological types and barred galaxies are included. Also, Zaritsky et al. (1994) found out a good correlation between the gradient and the morphological type, with larger slopes for late spirals.

Here, we are going to explore the relationship among the gradient and other characteristics for late-type spirals only. In order to do this, information on the optical radius, surface brightness, absolute magnitude and gas mass and density has been obtained for five late-type (Sd or later), non-barred spiral galaxies and four barred galaxies from different authors, as Webster et al. (1983), McCall et al. (1985), Zaritsky et al. (1994), van Zee et al. (1997) and Hidalgo-Gámez (2004) and references therein. None of these parameters except the absolute magnitude were studied by Vila-Costas & Edmunds (1992) or Zaritsky et al. (1994). The results are shown in Figures from  a to  a for non-barred galaxies and in Figures from  b to  b for barred ones. In these figures, the stars correspond to the galaxies in the literature and triangles represent the galaxies in this study (dwarf spiral galaxies). Also, the solid line is the fitting to th e non-dwarf galaxies sample while the dotted line is the fitting to all the galaxies, including the dwarf ones. The regression coefficients of the former are shown at the top-right corner of each figure.

The largest value of the regression coefficient for non-barred galaxies are those for the M$_b$ and the optical radius, indicating that the gradient of non-dwarf, late-type spirals shows a trend with these two parameters. There is also a weak correlation with the gas mass (total r$_g$ = $-0.61$) but not trend at all for the gas surface density, with a regression coefficient of $-0.3$. When dwarf spirals are included, the regression coefficients do not change much, although the slopes became shallower for all the cases. There might be several reasons for the small regression coefficient in Figure  a as a much smaller number of data-points. Also, as the values of the dS are determined averaging the gas mass over the area of a disc and not considering an specific disc model, there must be differences between the dS and the Sm gas surface density. In any case, the value obtained for UGC 6205 seems to be similar to the other five Sm galaxies, but not UGC 5296 where the surface density is much smaller. In order to fit the non-dwarf trends, both UGC 6205 and UGC 5296 might have lower gradients, between $-0.15$ and $-0.30$ dex/kcp. They are, in any case, larger than those values for non-dwarf galaxies. They both also seem to have very low content of the gas mass.

Figures  b to  b show the same as Figures  a to  a, but for barred galaxies, with a total of four galaxies from the literature (NGC 4395, NGC 925, NGC 1313, and NGC 5068) and UGC 5242 (triangle). Now, the absolute magnitude (r$_g$ = $-0.93$) and the gas surface density (r$_g$ = $-0.73$) show a correlation with the gradient.

The results presented here seem to be in agreement with previous investigations. The correlation of the gradients with both, the radius and the absolute magnitude might be related with the correlation with the morphological type. The late-type galaxies tend to be smaller and with larger magnitudes than earlier galaxies (Hidalgo-Gámez 2004; van der Bergh 2008). Moreover, barred galaxies tend to be larger than non-barred galaxies of the same M$_b$ (Hidalgo-Gámez 2004). The main difference resides in the gas density surface, with a strong correlation for barred galaxies, while none for non-barred. The reason for such difference is not well understood yet. It might be related with some dynamical processes of the bar acting on the gas mass distribution. Or it is just a problem of poor sampling with a small range in values of the gradient.

Figures 7-10 can also be used to check the reliability of the gradient of the individual galaxies. Adopting the definition of dwarf spiral galaxy by Hidalgo-Gámez (2004) and Figures 7a and 8a, dwarf spirals might show slopes larger than $-0.15$ dex/kpc, which are in agreement with the results presented here. As said above, the values for UGC 6205 and UGC 5296 seem to be too large. Gradients of about $-0.2$ dex/kpc for UGC 6205 and between $-0.2$ and $-0.3$ dex/kpc for UGC 5296 might fit all the correlations presented here while, considering the uncertainties in the gradient, the value for UGC 6377 seems to be quite good. The fitting of the only barred galaxy in our sample, UGC 5242, is very good for the relationship with the M$_b$ and the M(H i), while the gas surface density is very large for its gradient. Therefore, it can be concluded that despite all the uncertainties and caveats, the gradient for these four particular dwarf spirals are really quite steep and th ey follow the same relationship as late-type spirals; that is, smaller, and less brighter galaxies have larger gradients, regardless of their gas mass.

# Conclusions

The abundance gradient for four dwarf spiral galaxies have been obtained, none of them previously studied. Contrary to expected, the three non-barred galaxies show very steep gradients, larger than $-0.2$ dex/kpc, while the barred galaxy UGC 4252 shows a shallower one, of only $-0.10$ dex/kpc. Therefore, it seems that barred, dwarf galaxies have smaller slopes than non-barred ones, as previously discussed. Although the gradients look very steep compared with the values for the Milky Way, they follow the trend defined by other late-type, non-dwarf galaxies. The gradients for UGC 6205 and UGC 5296 are, at least, of $-0.2$ and $-0.3$ dex/kpc, respectively. In order to obtain a conclusive answer, more late-type, dwarf and non-dwarf are needed.

The increase of the slope with Hubble type has been reported before and it is confirmed with these new gradients of very small spiral galaxies. There are indications than the dwarfer the galaxy is, the steeper the gradient. This might be a very important conclusion. As concluded in Hidalgo-Gámez (2004) it seems that dwarf spiral galaxies do not share the same properties as their normal-size counterparts. Actually, their luminosity functions and star formation processes resemble more those for irregular galaxies (Reyes-Pérez 2009; Reyes-Pérez & Hidalgo-Gámez, in preparation). Therefore, it would be very interesting to ask why normal irregular galaxies, which are similar to dwarf Sm galaxies in many other aspects, do not have strong gradients in oxygen abundance?

| Method | UGC 6205 | UGC 6377 | UGC 5296 | UGC 5242 |
|:--:|:--:|:--:|:--:|:--:|
| Z$_{23}$ | -0.4 | -0.15 | -0.8 | -0.06 |
| Z$_P$ | -0.3 | -0.16 | -0.7 | -0.006 |
| Z$_{N2}$ | -0.2 |  - | - | -0.2 |
| Z$_{N3}$ | -0.2 |  - | - | -0.14 |
| Z$_{ave}$ | -0.3 | -0.2 | -0.6 | -0.1 |
| L/M metallic | -0.4 | -0.3 | -0.6 | -0.6 |
| I/O regions | -0.4 | -0.16 | -0.33 | -0.15 |
| averaged distance | -0.3 | -0.25 | -0.5 | -0.07 |
| gradient | -0.3$\pm$`<!-- -->`{=html}0.03 | -0.2$\pm$`<!-- -->`{=html}0.02 | -0.43$\pm$`<!-- -->`{=html}0.1 | -0.17$\pm$`<!-- -->`{=html}0.06 |

Gradient abundance of the galaxies here. In columns 2, 3, 4 and 5 the name of the galaxy is given, while column 1 presents the different methods used in the gradient determination. The first row gives the gradients when the abundance is obtained with the $R_{23}$ method. The gradients determined with the $P$ abundances are presented in the second row. Rows 3 and 4 give the gradients obtained with the $N2$ and $N3$ methods, respectively. Row 5 shows the gradient obtained with the average value of the metallicity. Also, the difference in abundance and in distance between the most and the less metallic (L/M) regions and between the most internal and external regions (I/O) in the sample are presented in rows 6 and 7. Finally, the gradient obtained when all the abundance of all regions at a distance bin are averaged is presented in row 8 while the preferred value of the gradient is presented in row 9 with a dispersion value from all of the gradient determinations. All the values are in dex/kpc. See text for more details.


abstract: The nature of quantum computation is discussed. It is argued that, in terms of the amount of information manipulated in a given time, quantum and classical computation are equally efficient. Quantum superposition does not permit quantum computers to "perform many computations simultaneously" except in a highly qualified and to some extent misleading sense. Quantum computation is therefore not well described by interpretations of quantum mechanics which invoke the concept of vast numbers of parallel universes. Rather, entanglement makes available types of computation process which, while not exponentially larger than classical ones, are unavailable to classical systems. The essence of quantum computation is that it uses entanglement to generate and manipulate a physical representation of the correlations between logical entities, without the need to completely represent the logical entities themselves.
author: A. M. Steane
Centre for Quantum Computation,
Department of Atomic and Laser Physics, University of Oxford,
Clarendon Laboratory, Parks Road, Oxford OX1 3PU, England.
date: 1 October 2002
title: A quantum computer only needs one universe

The main purpose of this article is to improve our insight into what is going on in any quantum computation. Although I have no new quantum algorithms or methods to offer, I hope this type of contribution may still be of some help towards a better grasp of quantum computation, and therefore towards future insights and new methods.

The article has been prompted by the often-quoted, though admittedly vague statement, "a quantum computer can perform vast numbers of computations simultaneously". I think this statement is sufficiently misleading that it should have a "health warning label" attached to it, where in this case it is the health of our insight into quantum computing which we need to guard. The statement is sometimes used as evidence that quantum physics is best understood in terms of vast numbers of parallel universes , and therefore that a laboratory demonstration of quantum computing is evidence in favour of such interpretations as opposed to others (though they all make the same predictions). It is not my main purpose here to bring out the logical difficulties of this, or any other, interpretation of quantum physics. However, the title "A quantum computer only needs one universe" conveys the conclusion of the present discussion: quantum computers are not wedded to "many worlds" interpretations, not only in terms of the prediction of the results of experiments, but also in terms of insight into what is going on within the quantum computational process.

The discussion will consist of a sequence of seven remarks followed by a proposition. The intention is to point out features of quantum computing processes which suggest that a better insight into quantum computing is gained by thinking of it as a small process which exploits correlations provided by entanglement, rather than a large process which exploits massive parallelism. The thesis is that quantum computation offers not a greater amount of computation in a given system size and time, but rather a more flexible type of process than is available in classical computation. The final proposition is a view of what the essence of this further flexibility is, namely an efficient way to represent and manipulate correlations.

# Seven remarks

*Background to remark 1*. For the purpose of this first remark, by "computations" we mean elementary processing operations which achieve some given degree of transformation of a body of information, such as evolving it from one state to an orthogonal state. It is certainly not self-evident that a quantum computer does exponentially more computations than a classical computer of similar size calculating for a similar time, since there are not exponentially more computational results available. This follows immediately from Holevo's theorem on the capacity of a quantum channel to transmit classical information. We may deduce that whatever else may be said about a quantum computer, it does not constitute many classical information processors. (It is self-evident that it does constitute one quantum information processor). No one, to my knowledge, has seriously argued that a quantum computer does constitute many classical information processors, but informal statements implying this have been quite common (and I have not been totally innocent of them).

Furthermore, when a classical computer simulates the action of a quantum computer, it may need exponentially more time steps or physical components, but then it also yields exponentially more information about the final state. Therefore:

> **Remark 1**. Quantum computers cannot manipulate classical information more efficiently than classical ones, and the total information about the dynamics of a quantum system which can be obtained by classical computing cannot be obtained more efficiently by quantum computing.

In this sense, the two types of computing are equally efficient. Nevertheless, the ability of a quantum computer to be focused onto specific desired results remains highly significant and useful, for the same reason efficient classical algorithms are significant compared to inefficient ones.

*Background to remark 2*. Some insight into computational efficiency can be obtained by examining the difference between an efficient and an inefficient classical algorithm for the same problem. Take as an example problem that of finding an item in an ordered list (for example, a name in an alphabetically ordered list). In order to make the problem capable of being efficient both in space and time, we assume that elements of the list can be generated by some fast algorithm $f$. The problem is then equivalent to that of finding the root of a monotonic function $f(x)$, where $x$ is an integer between zero and $N-1$ (where for an $n$-bit problem, $N=2^n$). An efficient algorithm is the binary search (examine $f(N/2)$, and then according as it is less than or greater than zero, discard the first half or the second half of the list, and repeat). An inefficient algorithm is the exhaustive search (examine every element in turn, until the root is found). If we make a direct comparison between the binary search and the exhaustive search, forgetting for a moment our understanding of number theory, then each step of the binary search appears to accomplish an exponentially large number, of order $N/2$, steps of exhaustive search. For example if $f(N/2) < 0$ then in one step of the binary search we have apparently accomplished the $N/2$ 'computations' $f(0) \ne 0,\;f(1) \ne 0;\,f(2) \ne 0,\;\cdots f(N/2) \ne 0$. Actually, of course, only one of these computations has been carried out: the rest follow by a process of reasoning, drawing on the definition of number and the statement that $f(x)$ is monotonic.

> **Remark 2.** The quantity "amount of computation" is not correctly measured by counting the number of steps which would have had to be accomplished if the computation had been done another way.

Therefore, to measure the "amount of computation" carried out in a quantum algorithm such as Shor's, it is inappropriate to count the steps which a classical computer would have needed. A laboratory demonstration of Shor's algorithm does not constitute proof that huge amounts of computation have taken place in a small system in a small time—unless there is a proof to that effect which we have not yet considered.

*Background to remark 3.* The "proof" (or rather, evidence) usually offered is the presence of processes such as $$\sum_{x=0}^{2^n-1} \left| {x} \right> \left| {0} \right> \rightarrow \sum_{x=0}^{2^n-1}
\left| {x} \right> \left| {f(x)} \right>,  \label{fx}$$in a quantum algorithm such as Shor's. However, we know that such a process does not constitute "evaluation of $N$ values of the function" except in a highly qualified sense, since upon examining the computer, we will only be able to learn one value of the function. To that extent the situation is comparable to the classical binary search, where when a single function evaluation was carried out, an appearance of vast numbers of parallel evaluations arose when the algorithm was looked at from a perspective which lacked insight. Therefore, it remains open whether the mathematical notation of () is giving a misleading appearance or a good insight into the quantity of computation.

Let us consider examples of notations which give an impression of many simultaneous computations, but where we can prove this to be a false impression. I will propose first an artificial classical example, and then a more powerful quantum one. Suppose we have a collection of $n$ compass needles. Each needle can indicate north, south, east or west, or any other direction. The direction is a two-component vector which we write with the notation $[\psi]$. We will use our needles as a simple classical computing device, in which pointing north represents zero and pointing east represents one. The vector for north may therefore be conveniently written $[0]$, and the vector east can be written $[1]$. A state of $n$ needles such as $[0][1][0][1]$ is written $[0101]$. Suppose we begin with all needles pointing north, and then rotate each needle to point northeast. This requires $n$ elementary operations, and performs the process $$[0] \rightarrow \frac{1}{2^{n/2}}
\sum_{x=0}^{2^n-1} [x].         \label{cc}$$Our computer now "stores all the values of $x$ from $x=0$ to $x=2^n-1$ simultaneously". It has also just "performed $2^n$ evaluations of the function $f(x) = x$" in only $n$ steps! Actually, of course, this computer only "stores" all those values in a highly qualified (and in this case almost useless) sense, and only "evaluates" all those function values in a highly qualified sense, despite the appearance of (). (More complicated functions can be evaluated "in parallel", by many methods: for example, by operating a sequence of base-3 logic gates on the needles, where the three logic states for each gate input and output are $[0]$, $2^{-1/2}([0]+[1])$ and $[1]$, and then interpreting the final state of the needles as a superposition of binary numbers. Of course this is of no practical value, and only a small family of functions can be treated). This is a good illustration of the fact that the essential element in quantum (as contrasted with classical) computing is not superposition but entanglement. It is the entanglement in the right hand side of () which makes the quantum state computationally useful, and it is entanglement which is hard to express succinctly in mathematical notation.

A more powerful example is given by the Gottesman-Knill theorem (I take the statement from ):

> **Gottesman-Knill theorem**: *Any quantum computer performing only: a) Clifford group gates, b) measurements of Pauli group operators, and c) Clifford group operations conditioned on classical bits, which may be the results of earlier measurements, can be perfectly simulated in polynomial time on a probabilistic classical computer.*

When we recall that the Clifford group contains both Hadamard rotations and controlled-not gates, we see the strength of this statement. It means that there exist many quantum algorithms which, when written down in standard state-vector notation, have an appearance of multiple parallel computations just as strong as that of (), and yet which can be classically simulated efficiently.

> **Remark 3.** In view of the fact that it is possible for mathematical notation to give a false impression of the quantity of computation represented by a given process, impressions such as the one contained in () do not give a reliable guide to quantity of computation.

Such an impression may merely reflect a weakness of the mathematical notation, not a profound insight into what is going on.

To conclude so far, when a quantum computer is evolved through a process such as () it is sometimes stated that the quantum computer 'computes' all the function evaluations $f(x)$. It is then asked, how can this be so, when a classical computer would need exponentially more time and/or space to compute all these things? However, this is a simple case of the same word 'compute' being used to mean two essentially different things, so there is no paradox. The quantum computer process () is being compared to the very different process $$\left| {0} \right>\left| {1} \right>\left| {2} \right>\cdots\left| {2^n-1} \right>
\rightarrow \left| {f(0)} \right>\left| {f(1)} \right>\left| {f(2)} \right>\cdots\left| {f(2^n-1)} \right>.  \label{pfx}$$ There is no reason why two such thoroughly different processes should require similar resources.

The argument so far has not produced an indisputable case, but in view of the remarks made, I would say the burden of proof lies with those who claim that quantum computation does really constitute a vast quantity of computation carried out in parallel. The remaining remarks argue directly against that claim. The aim of the discussion is not merely to say what quantum computation is *not*, however—I will also argue for an alternative, admittedly incomplete, view of what it *is*.

> **Remark 4**. An $n$-qubit quantum computer is only sensitive to decoherence to the level $1/\mbox{Poly}(n)$, not $1/\exp(n)$, in the case that different qubits have independent decoherence. If the quantum computer were really "doing $2^n$ computations", and the result depended on getting a large proportion of them right, then we would expect it to be sensitive to errors at the level $1/2^n$, which it is not.

I feel this point is so strong that it suffices on its own to rule out the concept of "vast parallel computation".

*Background to remark 5*. Quantum computing is now a field which has reached a modest degree of maturity, but there are still profound unresolved basic issues, chiefly the nature of entanglement involving more than two parties, and the general problem of constructing algorithms which take advantage of quantum physics. Almost certainly insights into each of these will contribute to understanding the other. Although most work on quantum algorithms uses the model of a quantum register with a network of logic gates, it is well known that other computing models are possible, for example cellular automata. Most such models are close cousins of the network model. Recently a new model was discovered which can be shown to reproduce the results of the network/register model, but which also can produce behaviour outside that model. This new model is the 'cluster state' computer, or 'one-way computer' discovered by Raussendorf and Briegel . The central elements are the preparation of a special entangled state of many qubits at the outset of the computation (the cluster state), followed by appropriately-chosen measurements of single qubits. No further elements are needed (in particular, no unitary 'logic gates', whether on one or more qubits, are needed, nor are joint measurements of two or more qubits needed). The choice of measurements at a given stage depends on the outcome of previous measurements. It can be shown that this model can be used to reproduce the action of any quantum network, with similar resources (qubits and time). However, it can also produce behaviour which has no natural interpretation in terms of networks of logic gates. For example, the number of steps ('logical depth') required to accomplish a desired transformation can be much smaller (e.g. a constant rather than a logarithm of the input size), and the temporal ordering of the measurements can be unrelated to the sequence of gates in a network designed to accomplish the same algorithm.

The cluster state prepared at the outset is a fixed state which does not depend on the computation to be performed. The measurements to be implemented at any time are determined from two pieces of classical information: a set of angles given by the algorithm, and the 'information flow vector' which is a classical bit-string of length $2n$ where $n$ is the size of the input information. This bit-string is updated depending on the outcomes of the measurements, and half of it gives the algorithm's output when all measurements are complete.

> **Remark 5.** The evolution of the cluster-state computer is not readily or appropriately described as a set of exponentially many computations going on at once. It is readily described as a sequence of measurements whose outcomes exhibit correlations generated by entanglement.

In order to design an algorithm for this or any other computer, it is natural to think in terms of classical information in the first instance, simply because that is the only way we know well. For example one might start from a network model, analyzed in a computational basis, and make use of the "quantum parallelism" concept of eq. (). This is certainly one good way to think about designing algorithms. However, the actual evolution of the cluster state computer has no ready mapping onto this analysis. The main features are instead the information flow vector, and the cluster state whose entanglement slowly disappears as more and more measurements are made on it. The information being processed must reside in these two, but the qubits play almost a passive role, in that they are prepared at the outset in a standard state, and thereafter simply measured one at a time. Rather than 'performing computations in superposition', the role of the quantum information is to provide a resource, namely entanglement, which permits the measurement outcomes to exhibit correlations of a different nature to those which would be possible with a set of classical bits.

*Background to remark 6.* I have argued that it is not true that a quantum computer accomplishes a vast number of computations all at once. A statement which, by contrast, has a clear meaning, and which I think is more useful, is that a quantum computer can compute a specific desired result, such as the period of a function, using much fewer resources than a classical computer would need. Now, when we examine how it is that some classical algorithms are more efficient than others, we find (as in the ordered search example considered above) that the efficient algorithms do not generate (either temporarily or permanently) unnecessary subsidiary results. It is natural, therefore, to ask whether quantum computers out-perform classical ones for the same reason. In view of the fact that, as I have already argued, the two types of computer are equally efficient, in terms of quantity of computations in a given time, this is probably the only available route for improved efficiency. When we examine an efficient quantum algorithm such as Shor's, we find that it is indeed essential to the working of the algorithm that the evaluations of $f(x)$ in superposition do *not* individually have any subsequent influence on other parts of the universe. If they did, the resulting entanglement would prevent the algorithm from working. The algorithm only establishes the correlations, such as that between $f(x)$ and $f(x + r)$ where $r$ is the period, not the individual values themselves.

> **Remark 6.** Whenever one algorithm for a given problem is substantially more efficient than another, the more efficient algorithm generates much less extraneous classical information.

Both memory resources and time must be included when measuring efficiency. The value of this remark is that it applies uniformly to classical and to quantum computing, and to their comparison. It implies that we should understand a gain in computational efficiency as a given result achieved with less processing, not as a given result achieved with the same amount of processing but in parallel.

> **Remark 7.** The different "strands" or "paths" of a quantum computation, represented by the orthogonal states which at a given time form, in superposition, the state of the computer (expressed in some product basis) are not independent, because the whole evolution must be unitary.

This remarks underlines the fact that in a quantum computer a single process is taking place, not many different ones. One practical result is that quantum computation cannot give an efficient algorithm for the unstructured search problem.

# Entanglement, superposition and correlations

It is undisputed that entanglement plays an important role in quantum computing, though the elucidation of this role is an ongoing research area. By definition, an entangled state cannot be written as a product, so if we want to write it down we will have to write a sum of terms. Owing to the linearity of quantum mechanics, subsequent unitary operations cause these terms to evolve independently, and the attraction of the picture of multiple parallel computations comes from this. However, this feature is no different from what is observed in the Fourier analysis of a classical linear electronic circuit. Each Fourier component of a classical signal will there behave independently of the others, but it does not give any useful insight to talk of the different Fourier components as occupying 'parallel universes'.

The Fourier example (and others that could be given) emphasizes that superposition is not in itself the essential ingredient in quantum computation. Entanglement is, on the other hand, the essential difference between the states on the right hand side of equation () and of equations () and (), and no known efficiency separation between quantum and classical computation does not involve the exploitation of entanglement for computational purposes.

I will now put forward an interpretational view of quantum computing which is in accord with the seven remarks above, and with what is known about entanglement.

> **Interpretational view**. A quantum computer can be more efficient than a classical one at generating some specific computational results, because quantum entanglement offers a way to generate and manipulate a physical representation of the correlations between logical entities, without the need to completely represent the logical entities themselves.

The 'logical entities' will typically be integers. Thus, for example, in a set of qubits described by equation (), the correlation between $f(x)$ and $x$ is fully represented, but the values of $f(x)$ are not. For, a measurement of the qubits in the computational basis will with certainty give a pair of results such that if one is $x$, the other is $f(x)$, for any $x$ in the superposition, but it will only with low probability give any particular $x,\, f(x)$. Furthermore, if the qubits are to be used in Shor's period-finding algorithm, then the period of the function which the algorithm extracts is a property of the correlation between values of $f(x)$, not of any particular value, and when the algorithm finishes this correlation information is available, but no physical record remains of any value of $x$ for a given $f(x)$. This is not an insignificant side-effect, because the absence of a record of any $x$ arises from an interferometric cancellation which is essential to the success of the algorithm.

Note also that the interferometric cancellation is only possible if the terms in the sum are parts of a single entity, i.e. the single, coherent, state of a system isolated in such a way that it does not leave 'which path' information through entanglement with other systems. In common with remark 7 above, this emphasizes that the terms in the superposition do not each have a separate existence, and therefore should not be described as if they did.

The EPR experiment, in the form as analyzed by Bell, emphasizes that entanglement leads to a degree of correlation beyond that which can be explained in terms of local hidden variables. In order that these correlations are consistent with special relativity (i.e. that they cannot be used for faster-than-light signaling) it is necessary that they appear 'hidden' in two sets of measurement results which are random when either set is examined without the other. This combination of correlation and randomness is a further example of what I mean by a physical state which can represent correlation without representing information about the correlated entities (except in so far as this is logically necessary to represent information about their correlation).

To conclude, the basic fact which quantum computers take advantage of, is that multi-partite entanglement offers a way to produce some computational results without the need to calculate a lot of 'spectator' results. For example, we can find the period of a function without calculating all the evaluations of the function; we can find a specific property of a quantum system (such as an energy level) without also finding the complete wavefunction; we can communicate some shared aspect of distributed information without transmitting as much of the information as we would otherwise need to.

The impression of vast parallel computation in () is a false impression engendered by an imperfect mathematical notation. It might be argued that the mathematical notation is the only one we have, and that it carries a lot of insight into what is going on in the algorithm. The latter is true, but since we know for a fact the idea of 'vast computation' could only be true in a highly qualified sense here, and since there is other evidence to suggest vast computations are not in fact going on, therefore this impression is merely an artifact of the notation. It is noteworthy that the very fact that we can write the state using a summation symbol, rather than writing out all the components laboriously, indicates that the algorithmic information content of the state is small.

Entanglement does mean the process is of a subtle type not available to any classical system. Therefore the computation process, though not exponentially large, is unavailable to classical computers.

The answer to the question 'where does a quantum computer manage to perform its amazing computations?' is, we conclude, 'in the region of spacetime occupied by the quantum computer'. Nonetheless, the quantum computer's evolution is a subtle and powerful process, and one might want to convey this fact by invoking the image of an 'exploration of parallel universes'. However, since the concept of 'parallel universes' implies a computational power which is not in fact present in quantum computation, I feel such an image obscures more than it illuminates.

The right way to describe the efficiency of quantum computation is, I have argued, that entanglement provides a way to represent and manipulate correlations directly, rather than indirectly through a manipulation of the correlated entities.

Finally, if the state vector notation of () is imperfect, then can we think of a notation giving further insight? A more insightful perspective in many areas of physics is that of operators rather than states. For example, take the Heisenberg picture of quantum mechanics, the creation/destruction operator description of quantum optics, and the stabilizer description of quantum error correction. We have noted that quantum algorithms which cannot be efficiently simulated classically exploit entanglement. A notation which focused on this distinction, i.e. which treated operations on entanglement measures rather than state vectors, may give a useful insight.

I acknowledge helpful correspondence with David Deutsch, Christof Zalka, and Michael P. Frank. This work was supported by EPSRC and by the Research Training and Development and Human Potential Programs of the European Union.


abstract: Manuscripts submitted to INTERSPEECH 2023 must use this document as both an instruction set and as a template. Do not use a past paper as a template. Always start from a fresh copy, and read it all before replacing the content with your own.
  .
  Before submitting, check that your manuscript conforms to this template. If it does not, it may be rejected. Do not be tempted to adjust the format! Instead, edit your content to fit the allowed space. The maximum number of manuscript pages is 5. The 5th page is reserved exclusively for references, which may begin on an earlier page if there is space.
  .
  The abstract is limited to 1000 characters. The one in your manuscript and the one entered in the submission form must be identical. Avoid non-ASCII characters, symbols, maths, italics, etc as they may not display correctly in the abstract book. Do not use citations in the abstract: the abstract booklet will not include a bibliography. Index terms appear immediately below the abstract.
address:  $^1$First Author Affiliation, CountryX
  $^2$Second Author Affiliation, CountryY
  $^3$Third Author Affiliation, CountryZ
bibliography: mybib.bib
title: Paper Instructions and Template for INTERSPEECH 2023

**Index Terms**: speech recognition, human-computer interaction, computational paralinguistics

# Introduction

Templates are provided on the conference website for Microsoft Word, and LaTeX. We strongly recommend LaTeX which can be used conveniently in a web browser on overleaf.com where this template is available in the Template Gallery.

## General advice

Authors are encouraged to describe how their work relates to prior work by themselves and by others, and to make clear statements about the novelty of their work. This may require careful wording in the version submitted for review (guidance in Section ). All submissions must be compliant with the ISCA Code of Ethics for Authors, the Pre-prints Policy, and the Conference Policy. These can be found on the conference website.

### Conference theme

The theme of INTERSPEECH 2023 is Inclusive Spoken Language Science and Technology – Breaking Down Barriers. Whilst it is not a requirement to address this theme, INTERSPEECH 2023 encourages submissions that: report performance metric distributions in addition to averages; break down results by demographic; employ diverse data; evaluate with diverse target users; report barriers that could prevent other researchers adopting a technique, or users from benefitting. This is not an exhaustive list, and authors are encouraged to discuss the implications of the conference theme for their own work.

### Reproducible research

Authors may wish to describe whether their work could be reproduced by others. The following checklist will be part of the submission form, and is intended to encourage authors to think about reproducibility, noting that not every point will be applicable to all work.

1.  Reproducibility for all papers

    -   The paper clearly states what claims are being investigated.

    -   The main claims made in the abstract and introduction accurately reflect the paper's contributions and scope.

    -   The limitations of your work are described.

    -   All assumptions made in your work are stated in the paper.

2.  Data sets - for all data sets used, the paper includes information about the following:

    -   Relevant details such as languages, number of examples and label distributions.

    -   Details of train/validation (development)/test splits.

    -   Explanation of all pre-processing steps, including any data that was excluded.

    -   Reference(s) to all data set(s) drawn from the existing literature.

    -   For new data collected, a complete description of the data collection process, such as subjects, instructions to annotators and methods for quality control.

    -   Whether ethics approval was necessary for the data.

3.  Non-public data sets

    -   We use non-public data sets (if no or n/a ignore remaining questions in this section).

    -   We will release a copy of the data set in connection with the final paper.

    -   We are unable to release a copy of the data set due to the licence restrictions but have included full details to enable comparison to similar data sets and tasks.

    -   If only non-public data set is used, we have discussed why in the paper.

4.  For all experiments with hyperparameter search - you have included

    -   The exact number of training and evaluation runs, and how the models were initialised in each case.

    -   Bounds for each hyperparameter.

    -   Hyperparameter configurations for best-performing models.

    -   The method of choosing hyper parameter values and the criterion used to select among them.

    -   Summary statistics of the results (e.g. mean, variance, error bars etc)

5.  Reported experimental results - your paper includes:

    -   A clear description of the mathematical formula(e), algorithm and/or model.

    -   Description of the computing infrastructure used.

    -   The average runtime for each model or algorithm (e.g. training, inference etc) or estimated energy cost.

    -   Number of parameters in each model.

    -   Explanation of evaluation metrics used.

    -   For publicly available software, the corresponding version numbers and links and/or references to the software.

6.  Non-public source code

    -   We use non-public source code for experiments reports in this paper (if no or n/a ignore the remaining questions in this section).

    -   All source code required for conducting experiments will be made publicly available upon publication of the paper with a license that allows free usage for research purposes.

    -   We are unable to release a copy of the source code due to licence restrictions but have included sufficient detail for our work to be reproduced.

## Double-blind review

INTERSPEECH 2023 is the first conference in this series to use double-blind review, so please pay special attention to this requirement.

### Version submitted for review

The manuscript submitted for review must not include any information that might reveal the authors' identities or affiliations. This also applies to the metadata in the submitted PDF file (guidance in Section ), uploaded multimedia, online material (guidance in Section ), and references to pre-prints (guidance in Section ).

Take particular care to cite your own work in a way that does not reveal that you are also the author of that work. For example, do not use constructions like "In previous work \[23\], we showed that …" but instead use something like "Jones et al. \[23\] showed that …".

Authors who reveal their identity may be asked to provide a replacement manuscript. Papers for which a suitable replacement is not provided in a timely manner may be withdrawn.

Note that the full list of authors must still be provided in the online submission system, since this is necessary for detecting conflicts of interest.

### Camera-ready version

Authors should include names and affiliations in the final version of the manuscript, for publication. LaTeX users can do this simply by uncommenting `\interspeechcameraready`. The maximum number of authors in the author list is 20. If the number of contributing authors is more than this, they should be listed in a footnote or the Acknowledgements section. Include the country as part of each affiliation. Do not use company logos anywhere in the manuscript, including in affiliations and Acknowledgements. After acceptance, authors may of course reveal their identity in other ways, including: adjusting the wording around self-citations; adding further acknowledgements; updating multimedia and online material.

### Pre-prints

Authors should comply with the policy on pre-prints, which can be found on the conference website. Note that this policy applies not only to pre-prints (e.g., on arXiv) but also to other material being placed in the public domain that overlaps with the content of a submitted manuscript, such as blog posts.

Do not make any reference to pre-print(s) – including extended versions – of your submitted manuscript. Note that ISCA has a general policy regarding referencing publications that have not been peer-reviewed (Section ).

# Related work

## Layout

Authors should observe the following specification for page layout by using the provided template. Do not modify the template layout! Do not reduce the line spacing!

### Page layout

-   Paper size must be DIN A4.

-   Two columns are used except for the title section and for large figures that may need a full page width.

-   Left and right margin are 20 mm each.

-   Column width is 80 mm.

-   Spacing between columns is 10 mm.

-   Top margin is 25 mm (except for the first page which is 30 mm to the title top).

-   Bottom margin is 35 mm.

-   Text height (without headers and footers) is maximum 235 mm.

-   Page headers and footers must be left empty.

-   No page numbers.

-   Check indentations and spacing by comparing to the example PDF file.

### Section headings

Section headings are centred in boldface with the first word capitalised and the rest of the heading in lower case. Sub-headings appear like major headings, except they start at the left margin in the column. Sub-sub-headings appear like sub-headings, except they are in italics and not boldface. See the examples in this file. No more than 3 levels of headings should be used.

### Fonts

Times or Times Roman font is used for the main text. Font size in the main text must be 9 points, and in the References section 8 points. Other font types may be used if needed for special purposes. LaTeX users should use Adobe Type 1 fonts such as Times or Times Roman, which is done automatically by the provided LaTeX class. Do not use Type 3 (bitmap) fonts. Phonemic transcriptions should be placed between forward slashes and phonetic transcriptions between square brackets, for example vs. , and authors are encouraged to use the terms 'phoneme' and 'phone' correctly .

### Hyperlinks

For technical reasons, the proceedings editor will strip all active links from the papers during processing. URLs can be included in your paper, if written in full, e.g., <https://www.interspeech2023.org/call-for-papers>. The text must be all black. Please make sure that they are legible when printed on paper.

## Figures

Figures must be centred in the column or page. Figures which span 2 columns must be placed at the top or bottom of a page. Captions should follow each figure and have the format used in Figure . Diagrams should be preferably be vector graphics. Figures must be legible when printed in monochrome on DIN A4 paper; a minimum font size of 8 points for all text within figures is recommended. Diagrams must not use stipple fill patterns because they will not reproduce properly in Adobe PDF. Please use only solid fill colours in diagrams and graphs. All content should be viewable by individuals with colour vision deficiency (e.g., red-green colour blind) which can be achieved by using a suitable palette such one from <https://colorbrewer2.org> with the 'colorblind safe' and 'print friendly' options selected.

## Tables

An example of a table is shown in Table . The caption text must be above the table. Tables must be legible when printed in monochrome on DIN A4 paper; a minimum font size of 8 points is recommended.

| **Ratio** |       |   **Decibels** |
|----------:|:------|---------------:|
|       $1$ | $/10$ |       $-20$    |
|       $1$ | $/1$  |         $0$    |
|       $2$ | $/1$  | $\approx 6$    |
|    $3.16$ | $/1$  |        $10$    |
|      $10$ | $/1$  |        $20$    |
|     $100$ | $/1$  |        $40$    |
|    $1000$ | $/1$  |        $60$    |

This is an example of a table

## Equations

Equations should be placed on separate lines and numbered. We define $$\begin{aligned}
  x(t) &= s(t') \nonumber \\
       &= s(f_\omega(t))
\end{aligned}$$ where $f_\omega(t)$ is a special warping function. Equation is a little more complicated. $$\begin{aligned}
  f_\omega(t) &= \frac{1}{2 \pi j} \oint_C
  \frac{\nu^{-1k} \mathrm{d} \nu}
  {(1-\beta\nu^{-1})(\nu^{-1}-\beta)}
  \label{equation:eq2}
\end{aligned}$$

## Style

Manuscripts must be written in English. Either US or UK spelling is acceptable (but do not mix them).

### References

It is ISCA policy that papers submitted to INTERSPEECH should refer to peer-reviewed publications. References to non-peer-reviewed publications (including public repositories such as arXiv, Preprints, and HAL, software, and personal communications) should only be made if there is no peer-reviewed publication available, should be kept to a minimum, and should appear as footnotes in the text (i.e., not listed in the References).

References should be in standard IEEE format, numbered in order of appearance, for example is cited before . For longer works such as books, provide a single entry for the complete work in the References, then cite specific pages or a chapter . Multiple references may be cited in a list .

### International System of Units (SI)

Use SI units, correctly formatted with a non-breaking space between the quantity and the unit. In LaTeX this is best achieved using the `siunitx` package (which is already included by the provided LaTeX class). This will produce 25 ms, 44.1 kHz and so on.

| **Style Name**  | **Entities in a Paper**          |
|:----------------|:---------------------------------|
| Title           | Title                            |
| Author          | Author name                      |
| Affiliation     | Author affiliation               |
| Email           | Email address                    |
| AbstractHeading | Abstract section heading         |
| Body Text       | First paragraph in abstract      |
| Body Text Next  | Following paragraphs in abstract |
| Index           | Index terms                      |
| 1\. Heading 1   | 1^st^ level section heading      |
| 1.1 Heading 2   | 2^nd^ level section heading      |
| 1.1.1 Heading 3 | 3^rd^ level section heading      |
| Body Text       | First paragraph in section       |
| Body Text Next  | Following paragraphs in section  |
| Figure Caption  | Figure caption                   |
| Table Caption   | Table caption                    |
| Equation        | Equations                        |
|  List Bullet    | Bulleted lists                   |
| Reference       | References                       |

Main predefined styles in Word

# Specific information for Microsoft Word

For ease of formatting, please use the styles listed in Table . The styles are defined in the Word version of this template and are shown in the order in which they would be used when writing a paper. When the heading styles in Table are used, section numbers are no longer required to be typed in because they will be automatically numbered by Word. Similarly, reference items will be automatically numbered by Word when the "Reference" style is used.

If your Word document contains equations, you must not save your Word document from ".docx" to ".doc" because this will convert all equations to images of unacceptably low resolution.

# Results

Information on how and when to submit your paper is provided on the conference website.

## Manuscript

Authors are required to submit a single PDF file of each manuscript. The PDF file should comply with the following requirements: (a) no password protection; (b) all fonts must be embedded; (c) text searchable (do ctrl-F and try to find a common word such as "the"). The conference organisers may contact authors of non-complying files to obtain a replacement. Papers for which an acceptable replacement is not provided in a timely manner will be withdrawn.

### Embed all fonts

It is *very important* that the PDF file embeds all fonts! PDF files created using LaTeX, including on overleaf.com, will generally embed all fonts from the body text. However, it is possible that included figures (especially those in PDF or PS format) may use additional fonts that are not embedded, depending how they were created.

On Windows, the bullzip printer can convert any PDF to have embedded and subsetted fonts. On Linux & MacOS, converting to and from Postscript will embed all fonts:
pdf2ps file.pdf
ps2pdf -dPDFSETTINGS=/prepress file.ps file.pdf

### Sanitise PDF metadata

Check that author identity is not revealed in the PDF metadata. The provided LaTeX class ensures this. Metadata can be inspected using a PDF viewer.

## Optional multimedia files or links to online material

### Submitting material for inclusion in the proceedings

INTERSPEECH offers the option of submitting multimedia files. These files are meant for audio-visual illustrations that cannot be conveyed in text, tables and graphs. Just as with figures used in your manuscript, make sure that you have sufficient author rights to all other materials that you submit for publication. The proceedings will NOT contain readers or players, so be sure to use widely accepted formats, such as MPEG, WAVE PCM (.wav), and standard codecs.

Your multimedia files must be submitted in a single ZIP file for each separate paper. Within the ZIP file you can use folders to organise the files. In the ZIP file you should include a `README.txt` or `index.html` file to describe the content. In the manuscript, refer to a multimedia illustration by filename. Use short file names with no spaces.

The ZIP file you submit will be included as-is in the proceedings media and will be linked to your paper in the navigation interface of the proceedings. The organisers will not check that the contents of your ZIP file work.

Users of the proceedings who wish to access your multimedia files will click the link to the ZIP file which will then be opened by the operating system of their computer. Access to the contents of the ZIP file will be governed entirely by the operating system of the user's computer.

### Online resources such as web sites, blog posts, code, and data

It is common to provide links in manuscripts to web sites (e.g., as an alternative to including a multimedia ZIP file in the proceedings), code repositories, data sets, or other online resources. Provision of such materials is generally encouraged; however, they should not be used to circumvent the limit on manuscript length.

Authors must take particular care not to reveal their identity during the reviewing period. If a link to a particular resource is included in the version of the manuscript submitted for review, authors should attempt to provide an anonymised version of that resource for the purposes of review. If this is not possible, and a linked resource will inevitably reveal author identity, then authors should provide a warning to the reviewers, e.g., by linking to a special landing page that states 'Clicking this link will reveal author identities'.

Online resources should comply with the policy on pre-prints, which can be found on the conference web site.

# Discussion

Authors must proofread their PDF file prior to submission, to ensure it is correct. Do not rely on proofreading the LaTeX source or Word document. **Please proofread the PDF file before it is submitted.**

# Conclusions

# Acknowledgements

The INTERSPEECH 2023 organisers The authors would like to thank ISCA and the organising committees of past INTERSPEECH conferences for their help and for kindly providing the previous version of this template.

As a final reminder, the 5th page is reserved exclusively for references. No other content must appear on the 5th page. Appendices, if any, must be within the first 4 pages. The references may start on an earlier page, if there is space.