since the discovery that quantum coherences might have a functional role in biological systems even at room temperature  @xcite , there has been great interest in understanding how coherences can be maintained and used under the influence of different environments with competing effects .
in particular , much of recent research focused on one - dimensional nanostructures , due to their relevance to molecular aggregates , such as the j - aggregates  @xcite , natural photosynthetic systems  @xcite , bio - engineered devices for photon sensing  @xcite and light - harvesting systems  @xcite .    here
we focus on a ring - like structure of two - level systems coupled with nearest neighbor tunneling amplitudes which has been recently considered in literature  @xcite .
usually , under low light intensity , in many natural photosynthetic systems or in ultra - precise photon sensors the single - excitation approximation can be used . in this case
the system is equivalent to a tight binding model where one excitation can hop from site to site , see fig .
[ ring ] .
many photosynthetic organisms contain ring - like chlorophyll molecular aggregates in their light - harvesting complexes , which are called lhi and lhii  @xcite .
these complexes have the purpose to absorb light and to transfer the excitations to other structures or to a central core absorber , the reaction center , where charge separation , necessary in the next steps of photosynthesis , occurs .
these complexes are subject to the effects of different environments : @xmath0 dissipative , where the excitation can be lost ; @xmath1 proteic , which induces static or dynamical disorder .
the efficiency of excitation transfer can be determined only through a comprehensive analysis of the effects due to the interplay of all those environments .    here ,
in particular , we consider a system subject to the influence of both a common decay channel where the excitation can be lost , and a static disorder .
the first environment can be thought of as a model for the coupling of a molecular aggregate to the electromagnetic field  @xcite ( loss of excitation by recombination ) or for the coupling of the molecular aggregate to a central core absorber ( loss of excitation by trapping ) . for many molecular aggregates ,
the single channel approximation is appropriate to describe the coupling with the electromagnetic field , since the wavelength of the absorbed light is much larger than the system size ( natural complexes such as lhi , lhii typically span few tens of nanometers , while the wavelength of the involved photon is hundreds of nanometers ) .
moreover , it can also be considered as a good approximation for the coupling to a central core absorber , modeled for instance by a semi - infinite one - dimensional lead  @xcite .
the second environment consists of a protein scaffold , in which photosynthetic complexes are embedded , that induces fluctuations in the sites energies .
the fluctuations which occur on a time scale much larger than the time scale of the dynamics are usually described as static disorder . by static disorder
we mean position dependent , but time - independent , fluctuations of the site energies .
the case of time - dependent fluctuations of site energies has been considered in a separate paper  @xcite .
it is well known that , when many sites are all coupled to the same channel , we can have a superradiant behavior  @xcite .
superradiance implies the existence of some states with a cooperatively enhanced decay rate ( i.e.  proportional to the number of sites ) .
superradiance comes always together with subradiance , that is the existence of states with a cooperatively suppressed decay rate ( i.e.  smaller than the single - site decay rate ) .
though originally discovered in the context of atomic clouds interacting with the electromagnetic field  @xcite , in presence of many excitations , superradiance was soon recognized to be a general phenomenon in open quantum systems  @xcite under the conditions of coherent coupling with a common decay channel .
most importantly , it can also occur in presence of a single excitation ( the super of superradiance  @xcite ) , entailing a purely quantum effect .
the functional role that superradiance might have in natural photosynthetic systems has been discussed in many publications  @xcite , and experimentally observed in molecular aggregates  @xcite .
superradiance ( or supertransfer ) is also thought to play an important role w.r.t .  the transfer of excitation to the central core absorber  @xcite , and its effects on the efficiency of energy transport in photosynthetic molecular aggregates have been recently analyzed  @xcite .
the origin of superradiance lies in the fact that the excitation can be coherently spread over several sites , thus inducing a cooperative effect . on the other hand ,
static disorder is expected to destroy superradiance , since it induces localization  @xcite , which implies that excitons are localized on one site only , thus hindering cooperativity .
the main question we want to address here is whether a critical disorder exists at which superradiance and , thus , cooperativity are destroyed .
the relation between superradiance and localization have been already analyzed in literature in different contexts  @xcite .
in particular , in  @xcite the case of weak coupling to the continuum ( weak opening ) has been analyzed for one - dimensional systems .
it has been already analyzed also by some of the authors of the present paper : in  @xcite the case of open 1-d and 3-d anderson models in the strong opening regime was considered .
it was pointed out there that the sensitivity to disorder can be very different for superradiant and subradiant states : while the latter localize at the same critical disorder of the closed system ( i.e.  a system with no coupling to the continuum of states ) , the former localize at the critical disorder for which superradiance is quenched .
interestingly , though subradiant states essentially localize at the localization threshold associated with the closed system , they display some peculiar features due to opening , being neither fully localized nor extended ( hybrid states )  @xcite . in this paper
we aim to study both the regimes of weak and strong opening and their effects on localization in one - dimensional nanostructures .    even if it is easy to imagine that opening and disorder have competing effects on the efficiency of energy absorption and transfer , a deeper analysis is necessary to fully understand their action .
for instance , disorder decreases the efficiency of the superradiant states in absorbing light or in transferring excitations , but , at the same time , it can allow for energy absorption and transfer from the subradiant states .
thus , for these states , disorder is useful to enhance efficiency .
the latter effect is strongly related to the enhancement of efficiency due to noise : the so called noise - assisted transport , discussed in  @xcite .
noise - assisted transport constitutes a general phenomenon in quantum networks , even if its relation with subradiance has never been stressed up to now , to the best of our knowledge .
the plan of the paper is the following : in sec .
[ sec:2 ] we introduce the model , in sec .
[ sec:3 ] we derive analytically the critical disorder strength needed to quench superradiance , identifying the different regimes of weak and strong opening . in sec .
[ sec:4 ] we analyze in detail the relation with localization , while sec .
[ sec:5 ] is devoted to study the consequences of the previous findings on the system dynamics .
a brief discussion about the relevance to photosynthetic complexes is given at the end of each section .
sites coupled with nearest - neighbors tunneling transition amplitude @xmath2 .
all sites are connected to a common decay channel , where the excitation can escape , with an equal coupling strength @xmath3 .
, width=302 ]    we considered a 1-d chain of sites with periodic boundary conditions , arranged to form a ring - like structure , as shown in fig .  [ ring ] , where the excitation can hop from site to site
. the model is characterized by the following tight binding hamiltonian : @xmath4 where the summation index @xmath5 runs over the pairs of nearest - neighbor sites and @xmath6 is the tunneling transition amplitude . here
@xmath7 represents a state in which the excitation is at the site @xmath8 , while all the other sites are unoccupied . in terms of two - level system states
( @xmath9    the eigenvalues @xmath10 and the eigenstates @xmath11 of the system can be computed exactly . concerning the components of the eigenstate @xmath11 on the site basis @xmath12 , one has @xmath13 for @xmath14 , and @xmath15 for @xmath16 .
the ground state , corresponding to @xmath17 and energy @xmath18 , is fully symmetric and extended in the site basis : @xmath19    the 1-d anderson model can be `` opened '' by allowing the excitation to escape the system from any site into the same continuum channel .
this situation of `` coherent dissipation '' can be met in many systems and it has been recently considered in  @xcite , where it has been shown to give rise to the following effective non - hermitian hamiltonian ( see also  @xcite ) : @xmath20 where @xmath21 are the transition amplitudes from the discrete state @xmath22 to the continuum channel @xmath23 . in our case
, we have a single decay channel , @xmath24 , and equal couplings , @xmath25 , so that @xmath26 @xmath27 .
the quantum evolution is given by the operator @xmath28 which is non - unitary , and gives rise to a loss of probability in the decay channel .
the complex eigenvalues of @xmath29 can be written as @xmath30 , where @xmath31 represent the decay widths of the eigenstates .
usually , in molecular aggregates , energy is measured in units of @xmath32 , corresponding to energy divided by @xmath33 . in these units , time is measured in @xmath34 which corresponds to the mapping @xmath35 ( @xmath36 is the speed of light ) . in the following all units of energy
will be given in @xmath32 and in order to have time in @xmath37 we need to divide it by @xmath38 .
due to its specific structure , the operator @xmath39 has only one eigenstate with a non - zero eigenvalue : this is the fully extended state with eigenvalue equal to @xmath40 .
this eigenstate also corresponds to the ground state of @xmath41 , given in eq .
( [ sr ] ) .
all the other eigenstates of @xmath39 are degenerate with null eigenvalue and , since @xmath42 = 0 $ ] , they can be chosen to match the eigenstates @xmath11 , @xmath43 , of @xmath41 .
this implies that only the state @xmath44 , eq .  ( [ sr ] ) , has a non - vanishing decay width equal to the total decay width of the system : @xmath45 .
this is the superradiant state .
note that the dependence on @xmath40 of that decay width is the hallmark of the cooperative nature of superradiance .
all the other states with zero decay width are called subradiant . the full expression for the complex eigenstates of the non - hermitian hamiltonian , eq.([amef ] ) , is given in appendix @xmath46 , see eq.([ceig ] ) .
importantly , the superradiant effect might explain the strong dependence on the initial state of the efficiency of energy transfer to a central core absorber discussed in ref .
@xcite .
several features of the model above in absence of disorder are quite atypical .
indeed , superradiance , as discussed in many papers  @xcite , is usually reached only above a critical coupling strength with the continuum ( in the overlapping resonance regime ) when @xmath47 where @xmath48 is the average decay width and @xmath49 is the mean level spacing of the closed system . on the other hand ,
_ we are in a superradiant regime for any @xmath50 _ , even if the overlapping resonance condition is not satisfied
. moreover , the widths of the subradiant states are usually small , but not zero as in this case .
this is also due to the particular symmetric configuration chosen , from which it follows that @xmath41 and @xmath39 commute .
note that such geometrically - induced subradiant subspaces with zero decay width are equivalent to the trapping - free subspaces discussed in literature  @xcite .
finally , let us notice that the presence of a superradiant regime for any coupling strength to the continuum might indicate a relation between structure and function in natural complexes , and it might also suggest the use of ring - like structures to exploit the superradiant behavior .
the peculiar features discussed above disappear when we introduce the diagonal disorder , described by adding to the hamiltonian , eq .
( [ amef ] ) , the term @xmath51 where the random diagonal energies @xmath52 are taken uniformly distributed in @xmath53 $ ] , @xmath54 being the disorder strength . with the addition of this term
our model becomes equivalent to a 1-d open anderson model as considered in ref .
@xcite .
the presence of static disorder on the site energies breaks the symmetry of the system under rotations , inducing the width of the superradiant state to decrease and the widths of the subradiant states to increase ( the total decay width @xmath55 is a constant that does not depend on the degree of disorder @xmath54 ) , so that all of the eigenstates can decay into the continuum channel .
the effect of static disorder on the decay widths has been analyzed in fig .
[ gw ] , where the width of the superradiant state and the average width of all subradiant states are shown as a function of the disorder strength @xmath54 , for different parameters value .
as one can see , for small disorder , the effect on subradiant states is much more evident than that on the superradiant state . for large disorder , all widths approach the value @xmath3 , corresponding to the decay width of an isolated site . in this regime there is no collective behavior anymore and superradiance
is completely quenched .
_ vs _ the disorder strength , @xmath54 , for @xmath56 ( circles ) , @xmath57 ( squares ) , and @xmath58 ( crosses ) .
black symbols ( upper curve ) refer to the average over disorder of the largest width ( the superradiant state ) .
red symbols ( lower curve ) refer to the average over disorder of the mean subradiant width ( mean taken over the @xmath59 smallest widths ) @xmath60 . as a dashed line we plot the perturbative result , eq .
( [ gsub ] ) , for @xmath61 .
the horizontal dot - dashed line indicates the value @xmath62 . the critical disorder strength , eq .
( [ wlimit ] ) , is indicated as the intersection between the line given by perturbation theory and the horizontal line , see text for details .
, width=302 ]    for small disorder , it is possible to use perturbation theory ( see appendix  [ app : a ] ) to obtain the mean decay width of the @xmath59 smallest widths : @xmath63^{-1}\ , .
\end{aligned } \label{gsub}\ ] ] the sum in eq .
( [ gsub ] ) can be well approximated in different parameter regimes to give ( see appendix  [ app : b ] ) @xmath64    let us name _ weak opening _
the regime characterized by @xmath65 and _ strong opening _ the one in which @xmath66 .
the different regimes shown above can be understood if we consider that @xmath67 is the minimal nearest neighbor energy distance , see eq .
( [ eigq ] ) . in ref .
@xcite a perturbative result was obtained in the regime of weak opening , @xmath68 , which agrees with our findings . as one can see from eq .
( [ gsub2 ] ) , the average subradiant width in any regime increases as @xmath69 , but the dependence on the system size , @xmath40 , and on the degree of opening , @xmath3 , changes : in the weak opening regime , the widths increase with @xmath40 and @xmath3 , whereas , for very strong opening , they decrease with @xmath40 and @xmath3 .    in fig .
[ gw ] the perturbative expression is shown as a dashed line and agrees very well with numerical data . from eq .
( [ gsub ] ) one can define a critical disorder strength , @xmath70 , at which superradiance is quenched , given by the condition @xmath71 from which one gets @xmath72^{-1 } } } \ , .
\label{wcr}\ ] ]    for @xmath73 , all of the widths become essentially the same and equal to @xmath3 , while below @xmath70 they strongly depend on the chosen state .
usually , the transition between these two regimes , which corresponds also to a transition from a non - cooperative to a cooperative regime , is referred to as superradiance transition ( st ) in literature  @xcite .    even if the validity of eq .
( [ wcr ] ) has been shown in fig .
[ gw ] only in the weak opening regime , we checked that it gives an excellent estimate of the disorder at which superradiance is quenched also for strong opening .    from eq .
( [ wcr ] ) it is possible to get an approximate expression ( see appendix  [ app : b ] ) for the critical disorder strength , @xmath70 , in the different regimes : @xmath74 the results contained in eq .
( [ wlimit ] ) are very interesting , since they show that in some region of parameters ( typically small system size and weak opening ) the critical disorder at which superradiance is quenched is independent of @xmath3 ( a quantity often difficult to be experimentally determined ) , while it decreases with the system size as @xmath75 .
this independence from @xmath3 is also shown in fig .
[ gw ] where we plotted data obtained with different values of @xmath3 , for which @xmath76 .
in particular , for the largest value of @xmath3 considered in fig .
[ gw ] , @xmath77 , we have @xmath78 . the existence of a regime ( weak opening ) in which the critical disorder strength is independent of @xmath3 could be surprising . indeed , applying the overlapping resonance criterion , eq .
( [ orc ] ) , one would obtain @xmath79 , since @xmath80 and @xmath81 .
an explanation of this effect , due to localization , will be given in the next section .
a second remarkable result is the linear dependence of @xmath70 on @xmath40 and @xmath3 in the strong opening regime .
since , on increasing @xmath40 , one always enters the strong opening regime , it is possible to preserve the cooperative nature of superradiant states up to arbitrarily large disorder .
we may thus say that the opening induces a cooperative robustness to disorder , as was also recently found by some of the authors of this paper  @xcite .
it is interesting to observe that also in the case of dynamical disorder it was found  @xcite that the critical dephasing necessary to destroy the cooperative superradiant effects is proportional to both @xmath40 and @xmath3 .
note that this regime was not analyzed in ref .
@xcite , where it was stated that the critical disorder needed to quench superradiance does not depend on the superradiant decay rate .    from eq .
( [ wlimit ] ) we can infer that the dependence of @xmath70 on the system size @xmath40 is non - monotone .
setting @xmath82 , we can roughly estimate the @xmath40 value at which @xmath70 has a minimum : @xmath83     of sites in the ring for different values of the coupling strength @xmath3 , as indicated in the legend .
the numerical data ( symbols ) are compared with the analytical expression ( curves ) for the critical disorder strength , eq .
( [ wcr ] ) .
arrows indicate the size @xmath84 at which critical disorder is minimal , see eq .
( [ ncr ] ) .
, width=302 ]    to confirm the validity of the critical disorder strength , @xmath70 , computed above , as the value at which the st occurs , we computed the variance of the decay widths .
indeed , it is well known  @xcite that , at the st , the variance of the widths has a maximum .
the results of such a comparison are presented in fig .
[ varg ] , showing a good agreement between the two estimates of the st .    finally , it is interesting to estimate the value of @xmath70 for the photosynthetic complexes lhi and lhii . in this case @xmath85 and @xmath86 , respectively  @xcite .
the coupling with the electromagnetic field can be estimated from the radiative decay time @xmath87 of a single molecule , which is of the order of few nanoseconds  @xcite .
hence we get @xmath88 . on the other side , for the lhi complex
, the common decay channel can also represent the reaction center .
this coupling can be estimated to be @xmath89 from the mean transfer time to the reaction center of the lhi complex  @xcite , as discussed at the end of sec .
[ sec:5 ] .
both these couplings are very weak if compared to the energy scale of @xmath2 , so that we can assume that we are in a weak opening regime , @xmath90 , where @xmath70 does not depend on @xmath3 and it will then be the same for both environments .
we can thus use @xmath91 , see eq .
( [ wlimit ] ) , getting @xmath92 for lhi and @xmath93 for lhii .
these values of disorder are in agreement with the experimental observation that static disorder in lhii complexes is @xmath94@xmath95 times larger than the value of disorder in lhi complexes  @xcite .
those values are also quantitatively compatible with the estimated ranges of static disorder strength in natural photosynthetic complexes ( @xmath96@xmath97 for lhi complexes  @xcite , @xmath98@xmath99 for lhii complexes  @xcite . to make a comparison with the data contained in these references
, one should take into account that they considered gaussian static disorder with a standard deviation @xmath100 , so that @xmath101 ) .
these estimates might suggest that natural photosynthetic complexes operate close to the st .
in the previous section we analyzed how diagonal disorder modifies the decay widths of the states .
on the other hand , it is well known that disorder in isolated tight binding models induces anderson localization  @xcite . in 1-d systems
any disorder strength induces localized eigenstates , @xmath102 , where @xmath8 labels the position of the sites on the lattice and @xmath103 is the localization length , measured in units of intersite distance .
the localization length is , in general , a function of the disorder strength @xmath54 and of the energy @xmath104 .
in particular , it is well known that , for weak disorder and away from the edges of the energy band , @xmath105 .
therefore , it is possible to define a critical disorder @xmath106 for the localization effect to be important by the simple equation @xmath107 indeed , while any increase of the disorder strength will produce eigenstates with a localization length smaller than the sample size , decreasing @xmath54 gives rise to eigenstates with a localization length larger than the system size , i.e.  effectively delocalized .
_ vs _ the disorder strength @xmath54 .
upper panel represents the weak opening regime , namely @xmath108 , while the lower panel depicts the strong opening regime , @xmath109 . in both panels
the blue open circles represent the behavior of the superradiant state as a function of the disorder strength , while the red full circles stand for the average @xmath110 of the subradiant states .
vertical dashed lines represent in both panels the localization condition given by eq .
( [ loc88 ] ) ( red ) , and @xmath70 ( blue , eq .  ( [ wlimit ] ) ) . ,
width=302 ]    the interplay of disorder and opening can be studied by means of the participation ratio @xmath111 of the eigenstates @xmath112 of @xmath113 , given in eq .
( [ amef ] ) , where @xmath114 stands for the ensemble average over different realizations of the static disorder . the @xmath110 is widely used to characterize localization properties  @xcite and it clearly satisfies the bounds @xmath115 .
for extended states , it increases proportionally to the system size @xmath40 , while , for localized states , it is independent of @xmath40 .    our aim is to compare the disorder strength at which superradiance is quenched , @xmath70 , see eq .
( [ wcr ] ) , with the disorder strength at which the states localize , @xmath106 , see eq .
( [ loc88 ] ) . to do that ,
we analyze separately the @xmath110 of the superradiant state ( the state with the maximum decay width ) and the average @xmath110 of the other @xmath59 states as a function of @xmath54 .
the typical behavior of the @xmath110 as a function of the disorder strength @xmath54 has been analyzed in fig .
[ prring ] in two different situations : for weak opening ( @xmath116 , upper panel ) , and for strong opening ( @xmath117 , lower panel ) . in both cases ,
the @xmath110 of the superradiant state decreases roughly at the st , as given by @xmath70 , while the @xmath110 of subradiant states decreases roughly at @xmath106
.     decreases its value by @xmath118 with respect to the value at @xmath119 , as a function of the system size , @xmath40 , for the superradiant state ( upper panel ) and for the average @xmath110 over all the other states ( lower panel ) .
circles stand for the open system ( @xmath120 ) , crosses for the closed system ( @xmath121 ) .
here is @xmath122 . in the upper panel the full curve stands for the analytical @xmath70 , given by eq .
( [ wlimit ] ) , rescaled by a factor @xmath123 to fit numerical data . in the lower panel
a curve proportional to @xmath124 has been drawn to guide the eye ( for the explanation see text ) .
vertical dashed lines mark @xmath84 , see eq .
( [ ncr ] ) , and separate the weak opening regime ( left ) from the strong opening regime ( right ) .
, width=321 ]    to be more quantitative , we numerically computed , for the superradiant state and for the subradiant states , the disorder strength @xmath125 at which their @xmath110 decreases by 3% w.r.t .
the value at zero disorder . to highlight the peculiar effects due to opening ,
these results should be compared with those for the closed system ( @xmath121 ) . for the closed system we can not define superradiant and subradiant states , but , since the localization length depends on the energy level , we can compare states of the open system with states of the closed system having the same real energy .
in particular , the superradiant state is compared with the ground state of the closed system .
results are shown in fig .
[ wcrpr1 ] for the superradiant state ( upper panel ) and for the subradiant ones ( lower panel ) as a function of the system size @xmath40 . in this figure
we fix @xmath3 and , by varying @xmath40 , we switch from the weak opening regime ( for small @xmath40 values ) to the strong opening regime ( for large @xmath40 ) . the @xmath84 value which separates the two different regimes can be estimated from eq .
( [ ncr ] ) , and has been indicated as a dashed vertical line in both panels .
the opening does not modify the behavior of the subradiant states if compared with the behavior of the closed system , compare circles with crosses in the lower panel of fig .
[ wcrpr1 ] .
in particular , for non - edge states of the closed system  @xcite @xmath126 and , from eq .
( [ loc88 ] ) , one gets that the disorder strength at which states localize scales as @xmath127 the same dependence on @xmath40 is found in presence of opening and it has been indicated for the sake of comparison in fig .
[ wcrpr1 ] , lower panel .
let us now analyze the behavior of superradiant states , fig .
[ wcrpr1 ] upper panel . in the weak opening regime ,
@xmath128 , the open and the closed model display the same behavior , while in the strong opening regime , @xmath129 , the behavior is very different : in this regime @xmath125 decreases with @xmath40 for the closed model , while it increases with @xmath40 for the open one .
even if the behavior of the superradiant state of the open system in the weak and strong opening regimes is very different , it is always captured by the disorder strength at which superradiance is quenched , @xmath70 , see eq .
( [ wlimit ] ) .
indeed , the disorder strength at which the superradiant state starts lo localize ( phenomenologically described by @xmath125 ) scales with the parameters as @xmath70 ( compare full line with symbols in upper panel of fig .  [ wcrpr1 ] ) .
this fact allows us to understand the scaling of @xmath125 with @xmath40 in both regimes : @xmath130 in the weak opening regime , while @xmath131 in the strong opening regime .
note that the dependence @xmath130 is the same as that of the disorder strength necessary to localize the edge states of the closed system  @xcite , for which we have @xmath132 and , from eq .
( [ loc88 ] ) , we obtain a disorder strength scaling as @xmath75 .
the different sensitivity of super and subradiant states to disorder is far from being trivial .
due to the fact that the @xmath39 matrix in eq.([amef ] ) is a full matrix , the opening induces a long - range hopping which contrasts localization , and one might expect such long range to affect all states equally . on the other hand , the correlated nature of the long range hopping implies that only superradiant states are affected , leaving the subradiant states effectively decoupled from the environment and thus behaving more similarly to the states of the closed system . for more details
see ref .
@xcite .    summarizing
we can conclude that :    * the disorder strength necessary to localize the subradiant states is the same of the corresponding value for the closed system ; * the disorder strength necessary to localize the superradiant states is proportional to the disorder strength necessary to quench superradiance , @xmath70 ; * in the weak opening regime , the quenching of superradiance is determined only by the localization properties of the closed model , resulting in a @xmath70 independent of @xmath3 ; * in the strong opening regime , superradiance is quenched at a critical disorder proportional to @xmath55 , as in the case of time - dependent disorder  @xcite , thus showing its cooperative robusteness to disorder ; * for the realistic parameters of natural photosynthetic complexes , such as lhi and lhii ( see end of sec .
[ sec:3 ] ) , we are in the weak opening regime , so that it is possible to determine @xmath70 only by analyzing the localization properties of the closed system
. this fact can be very useful since the exact value of @xmath3 is not easy to be determined experimentally .
, @xmath133 , @xmath122 , for different disorder strengths as indicated in the legend .
numerical results are shown with symbols , while full curves show the analytical expression , eq .
( [ pth ] ) .
the arrow shows the value of @xmath134 obtained analytically by eq .
( [ ts ] ) for @xmath135 . for comparison ,
both the exponential decay of the superradiant state for zero disorder ( dashed ) and the decay at large disorder ( dotted ) are shown .
, width=302 ]    in this section we aim at studying how the time evolution of the survival probability @xmath136 ( that is the probability of finding the excitation in the system , initially prepared in some state @xmath137 ) is modified by the presence of static disorder .
that quantity is given by @xmath138    let us choose @xmath139 , the fully extended state of eq .
( [ sr ] ) , for our first analysis .
for @xmath119 we clearly have @xmath140 , since the fully extended state is the only one with a decay width , see eq.([ceig ] ) .
for @xmath141 the fully extended state does not coincide with the superradiant state anymore , and it should be written as a superposition of superradiant and subradiant states . using first order perturbation theory ( in the disorder strength @xmath54 )
we can derive an approximate expression for @xmath136 valid for small time , see appendix  [ app : a ] , eq .
( [ c1 ] ) : @xmath142 eq .
( [ pth ] ) takes into account only the superradiant decay and the fastest subradiant decay , @xmath143 , which can be computed from eq .
( [ gq ] ) given in appendix  [ app : a ] , setting @xmath144 .    in fig .
[ ptth ] we compared numerical data for @xmath136 with the analytical expression given in eq .
( [ pth ] ) : the agreement is excellent for disorder strength @xmath145 , where the decay is well approximated by a bi - exponential function . from eq .
( [ pth ] ) it is also possible to compute the time at which a change in the decay occurs , @xmath146 , by equating the two terms on the r.h.s .  of eq .
( [ pth ] ) . dividing by @xmath147 in order to have @xmath146 in picoseconds
, we obtain @xmath148 such a time , for one value of the disorder strength , is shown with an arrow in fig .
[ ptth ] . note that @xmath146 can be considered as the time up to which the decay is superradiant .
as the disorder increases , @xmath146 goes to zero and the decay of the extended state becomes similar to the decay of independent sites , i.e.  @xmath149 .    , rescaled to the individual decay width @xmath3 , as a function of the rescaled disorder strength @xmath150 .
different sets of values have been considered : full circles are for @xmath151 , @xmath152 , @xmath153 , @xmath154 ; open circles are for @xmath155 , @xmath133 , @xmath156 , @xmath157 .
the dashed red line represents @xmath158 .
, width=302 ]    the generality of our results can be assessed by observing that the critical disorder at which superradiance is quenched is an important threshold for the whole system dynamics and not only for the superradiant state . to this end , let us consider as initial state a random superposition of site states @xmath159 @xmath160 being random complex coefficients such that @xmath161 . for such initial state ,
we compute the survival probability @xmath136 , for one realization of disorder . by changing the random initial state and the random diagonal disorder , we can consider the average survival probability @xmath162 and define the decay time @xmath163 as @xmath164 these @xmath165 values are reported in fig .
[ dyn ] as a function of @xmath150 for different parameter values . for the sake of comparison
we show , in the same figure , the analytical expression for the average decay width of the subradiant states , see eq .
( [ wcr ] ) .
as one can see , up to a numerical constant , the agreement is very good .
in other words , the disorder strength necessary to quench superradiance ( obtained analytically imposing the average decay width of the subradiant states , @xmath60 , to be equal to the single site decay @xmath3 ) is also a valid tool in estimating the decay time of the survival probability associated with generic random initial conditions .
the problem of computing the survival probability of the superradiant state in presence of inhomogeneous broadening was also considered in  @xcite for @xmath40 two - level systems .
a bi - exponential behavior was numerically found for any excitation number .
for the case where only one excitation is present , our results are compatible with the bi - exponential behaviour of the survival probability found in  @xcite , and we also give an approximate analytical expression for the survival probability @xmath136 .    finally , in order to stress the relevance of superradiant energy transfer in natural photosynthetic complexes , let us consider the excitation transfer from the lhi complex to the reaction center  @xcite .
first of all , we point out that all models used to study the dynamics of this complex are characterized by a large inhomogeneity in the transfer time of different energy eigenstates  @xcite , which is , for instance , typical of the superradiant regime .
thus , we reasonably assume superradiance in transfer to be relevant in natural complexes . we can estimate @xmath3 , representing the coupling to the reaction center , from the following considerations . using realistic parameters as was done at the end of sec .
[ sec:3 ] , @xmath85 , @xmath166 , we computed @xmath136 for the fully extended state of eq .
( [ sr ] ) , in presence of a realistic value of the static disorder @xmath167 ( a large disorder corresponding to the critical disorder at which superradiance starts to be quenched ) .
we choose @xmath168 , so that we have a transfer time ( time at which @xmath169 ) starting from the fully extended state of @xmath170 , in agreement with experimental data  @xcite .
note that a single occupied site would give a transfer time of @xmath171 , showing that , even in presence of strong and realistic static disorder , superradiance is able to strongly enhance energy transfer .
we analyzed the interplay of superradiance , induced by the coupling to a common decay channel , and localization , induced by static disorder , in 1-d ring - like structures , usually used to model some natural light - harvesting complexes .
the common decay channel can represent both the coupling to the electromagnetic field or to a central core absorber , such as the reaction center in natural photosynthetic complexes .
we have shown that , for zero disorder , these structures are in a superradiant regime for any value of the coupling strength to a common decay channel . above a critical disorder strength superradiant effects decrease until , for very large disorder , all of the states decay independently with the common width @xmath3 , and cooperativity is completely lost .
our main purpose was to determine the critical disorder at which superradiance is hindered . using a perturbative approach we determined analytically such critical disorder and we related it firstly with the localization properties of superradiant and subradiant states and then to the system dynamics .
we found that superradiance can be quenched by disorder in different ways , depending on the regime entailing either weak or strong coupling to the continuum .
these regimes are triggered by the parameter @xmath172 , which represents the ratio between the coupling strength to the continuum , @xmath3 , and the unperturbed mean level spacing in absence of disorder , @xmath173 .
when this ratio is small , i.e.  @xmath174 , the critical disorder is independent of the coupling strength with the external environment and it is determined only by the parameters of the molecular chain , since the opening is unable to affect the disorder - induced localization . in this regime , the critical disorder decreases with the size of the system , but , for large system size @xmath175 , such a regime becomes less and less feasible ( to be in the weak opening regime implies the condition @xmath176 ) . on the other hand , for strong opening , @xmath177 , the critical disorder increases with both the size of the system and the coupling strength with the external environment
this is in agreement with the results recently found in ref .
@xcite , where the same ring structure has been analyzed in presence of dephasing ( dynamical disorder ) and the strength necessary to destroy superradiance was found to be proportional to both @xmath3 and @xmath40 .
we also demonstrated that the critical disorder at which superradiance is suppressed is close to the disorder at which superradiant states localize  @xcite .
specifically , we found that , in the weak opening regime , @xmath178 , superradiance is quenched at the same disorder at which the edge state of the closed system , with real energy equal to that of the superradiant state , localizes .
we have also found that , in the strong opening regime , @xmath177 , superradiance is a manifestation of cooperative robustness to disorder , in that the superradiant state localizes at a disorder strength ( proportional to the system size ) much larger than the one needed to localize the corresponding edge state of the closed system . as for subradiant states , in any regime , they begin their process of localization at the same disorder strength at which the states of the closed system do .
finally , we have shown the relevance of our findings to natural photosynthetic complexes : @xmath0 for the realistic parameters of natural complexes , superradiance is quenched at a disorder strength which is independent of the coupling to the external environment ( electromagnetic field or reaction center ) , which is difficult to determine experimentally .
thus our findings allow to determine the critical disorder from the localization properties of the closed system alone ; @xmath1 the critical disorder thus obtained is compatible with experimental estimates , suggesting that natural systems operate close to the superradiance transition ; @xmath179 even in presence of large and realistic static disorder , superradiance can strongly enhance energy transfer to the reaction center and light absorbtion .     _
_ we would like to thank r.  kaiser and b.  sterzi for providing many useful discussions .
perturbation theory is applied to the _ symmetric unperturbed hamiltonian , _ @xmath180 in order to find the critical disorder strength , @xmath70 , at which superradiance is destroyed .
let us rewrite the hamiltonian given in eq .
( [ amef ] ) as @xmath181 where @xmath182 is the tight binding hamiltonian , eq .
( [ am ] ) , in absence of disorder and @xmath183 , see eq .
( [ dam ] ) , is a diagonal matrix which contains the disordered site energies @xmath184 .
it is necessary to define the non - hermitean `` bra '' as the transposed of a ket @xmath185 while the standard bra is the adjoint @xmath186 indeed , given the right eigenvectors of a symmetric hamiltonian @xmath187 , the left eigenvectors are @xmath188 , that is @xmath189 and we have the _ biorthogonality _ condition @xmath190 clearly , for real eigenstates we have @xmath191 .
matrix elements of the operators defined above , in the site basis @xmath192 , are given by , @xmath193 with @xmath194 .
( [ eq : defh0 ] ) @xmath6 , and @xmath195 , are independent identically distributed random variables with mean @xmath196 and variance @xmath197 .    since @xmath198=0,$ ] it is convenient to study the whole system on the basis of eigenstates of @xmath41 , which are given by @xmath13 for @xmath14 , and @xmath15 for @xmath16 , with eigenvalues @xmath199 the eigenvalues of the hamiltonian , @xmath200 , are thus given by , @xmath201 that is , only the ground state acquires a decay width @xmath55 .
such a state is called _ superradiant _ , and the others are _ subradiant_. notice that @xmath202 and @xmath203 are non - degenerate , while , for any @xmath204 , @xmath205 and @xmath206 span a two - dimensional degenerate eigenspace .
when the disorder strength is turned on every state will get an eigenenergy with a negative imaginary part ( decay width ) .
perturbation theory up to second order can be applied , for sufficiently small disorder strength , to give @xmath207 for degenerate energy levels the first order correction is given by the eigenvalues of the 2 by 2 symmetric matrices @xmath208 while the second order correction is @xmath209 we are interested in the imaginary part of the perturbed eigenvalues , and , since the eigenstates , @xmath205 , are _ real _ , first order corrections never contribute to those terms .
considering now averages over disorder and writing @xmath210 , with @xmath211 real , we obtain the average decay widths for the superradiant state @xmath212 and , for the subradiant ones , @xmath213 , @xmath214 the maximum decay widths of the subradiant states are clearly @xmath215 and @xmath216 , while the average of the subradiant widths is @xmath217 we finally define the critical disorder @xmath70 as the one at which @xmath218 i.e.  equals the single - site decay width @xmath3 .
let us now apply first order perturbation theory to the superradiant state .
for @xmath119 , the superradiant state is given by the extended state , eq .
( [ sr ] ) , while , for @xmath141 , we can write @xmath219 from this expression we can compute the probability to be in the superradiant state when starting from the extended state as @xmath220
let us rewrite eq .
( [ pte ] ) in the form @xmath221 where we have defined @xmath222 and @xmath223 eq .
( [ essea ] ) can be put in integral form for sufficiently large @xmath40 , that is @xmath224 , as @xmath225 it is easy to show that eq .
( [ esseaint ] ) has two different limits , namely @xmath226    nevertheless , substituting a sum with an integral works only for very large @xmath40 . for small @xmath227 , or , in general for a sufficiently small @xmath228 value , it is more convenient approximating the sum with only two terms , namely those for which the denominator in eq .
( [ essea ] ) is small . in detail
, one has @xmath229
this implies that , in this regime , @xmath230 on the other hand , for @xmath231 ( for all those @xmath40 values for which @xmath232 ) , one can approximate the sum with the integral and use the asymptotic behavior given in eq .
( [ asymp ] ) . to summarize we have the following behavior : @xmath233                              x. hu , t. ritz , a. damjanovic , and k. schulten , j. phys .
b * 101 * , 3854 ( 1997 ) ; x. hu , a. damjanovic , t. ritz , and k. schulten , pnas * 95 * , 5935 ( 1998 ) ; t. ritz , s. park , and k. schulten , j. phys .
b * 105 * , 8259 ( 2001 ) .          v. v. sokolov and v. g. zelevinsky , nucl .
a504 * , 562 ( 1989 ) ; phys .
b * 202 * , 10 ( 1988 ) ; i. rotter , rep .
54 * , 635 ( 1991 ) ; v. v. sokolov and v. g. zelevinsky , ann .
( n.y . ) * 216 * , 323 ( 1992 ) .
g.  l.celardo , f. borgonovi , v.  i. tsifrinovich , m. merkli , and g.  p. berman , j. phys .
c * 116 * , 22105 ( 2012 ) .
d. ferrari , g.  l. celardo , g.  p. berman , r.  t. sayre , f. borgonovi , j. phys .
c * 118 * , 20 ( 2014 ) .
g. l. celardo , f. m. izrailev , v. g. zelevinsky , and g. p. berman , phys .
lett b * 659 * , 170 ( 2008 ) ; g. l. celardo , f. m. izrailev , v. g. zelevinsky , and g. p. berman , phys .
e , * 76 * , 031119 ( 2007 ) ; g. l. celardo , s. sorathia , f. m. izrailev , v. g. zelevinsky , and g. p. berman , cp995 , nuclei and mesoscopic physics - wnmp 2007 , ed .
p. danielewicz , p. piecuch , and v. zelevinsky .


there is a mounting evidence that the galactic bulge is a triaxial structure , or a bar .
this was first postulated by de vaucouleurs  ( 1964 ) , based on similarities between the kinematics of the gas observed towards the galactic center and in other barred galaxies . however , the hypothesis that our galaxy is a barred galaxy was for a long time overshadowed by `` @xmath4 expanding arm '' hypothesis , despite a number of papers arguing for bar s presence ( e.g. peters 1975 ; liszt & burton 1980 ; gerhard & vietri 1986 ) .
only recently has the view of our galaxy as a barred spiral gained momentum , mostly due to the work of blitz & spergel ( 1991 ) .
they analyzed @xmath5 observations of the galactic center and showed convincingly that the observed asymmetry in the galactic longitude distribution of surface brightness is naturally explained by the bar with the near side in the first galactic quadrant .
binney et al .  (
1991 ) have constructed a dynamical model for gas in the inner galaxy , and their resulting bar has the same orientation as that suggested by blitz & spergel  ( 1991 ) in the sense that the closer part of the bar is at positive galactic longitudes .
cobe - dirbe multiwavelength observations of the galactic center ( weiland et al .
1994 ) confirmed the existence of the longitudinal asymmetry discussed by blitz & spergel  ( 1991 ) .
this data was used by dwek et al .
( 1995 ) to constrain a number of analytical bar models existing in the literature .
star counts have also shown evidence for triaxial structure in the center of the galaxy .
nakada et al .
( 1991 ) analyzed the distribution of iras galactic bulge stars and found asymmetry in the same sense as blitz & spergel  ( 1991 ) .
whitelock & catchpole  ( 1992 ) analyzed the number distribution of mira variables in the bulge as a function of distance modulus and found that the half of the bulge which is at positive galactic longitude is closer to us than the other half .
the observed stellar distribution could be modelled with a bar inclined at roughly @xmath6 to the line of sight .
weinberg  ( 1992 ) used agb stars as star tracers and mapped the galaxy inside the solar circle .
he found evidence for a large stellar bar with semimajor axis of @xmath7 and inclination placing the nearer side of the bar at positive galactic longitudes .
a third thread of evidence comes from the gravitational microlensing towards the galactic bulge ( udalski et al .  1994 ; alcock et al .  1995 ; alard et al . 1995 ) . observed high microlensing rate can be accounted for by stars placed in the near part of the galactic bar microlensing the stars from the far side of the bar ( kiraga & paczyski 1994 ; paczyski et al .
1994b ; zhao , spergel & rich 1995 ) .
there are many implications if this scenario is correct , discussed latter in this paper . for recent reviews on the galactic bar
see gerhard ( 1996 ) and kuijken ( 1996 ) .
in this paper we use a color - magnitude data obtained by the optical gravitational lensing experiment collaboration for 12 fields scattered across the galactic bulge to construct the three - dimensional model of the mass distribution in the galactic bar . the optical gravitational lensing experiment ( ogle , udalski et al .  1993 ; 1994 )
is an extensive photometric search for the rare cases of gravitational microlensing of galactic bulge stars by foreground stars , brown dwarfs and planets .
it provides a huge database ( szymaski & udalski 1993 ) , from which color - magnitude diagrams have been compiled ( udalski et al .
stanek et al .
( 1994 ; 1996 ) used the well - defined population of bulge red clump stars to investigate the presence of the bar in our galaxy . comparing extinction - adjusted apparent magnitudes of the red clump giants observed at fields lying at @xmath8
, we found that the red clump stars lying at the positive galactic longitudes are systematically brighter by @xmath9 than the stars lying at negative @xmath1 .
a bar - shaped bulge whose nearer side is at the positive galactic longitude most easily explains this offset . this agrees with blitz & spergel  ( 1991 ) and other works .
the paper is organized as follows . in section 2
we discuss the basis for using the red clump stars as a distance indicator . in section 3
we discuss the data used for the bar modelling . in section 4
we discuss various analytical models of the bar . in section 5
we constrain these models using our data . in section 6
we discuss various factors which might affect the fits . in section 7
we discuss some astrophysical implications of the constructed models , among the others for the gravitational microlensing optical depth .
before we model the galactic bar using red clump stars , we shall discuss the evidence that the red clump stars would be a good distance indicator for the galactic bulge population .
red clump stars are the equivalent of the horizontal branch stars for a metal rich population , i.e. relatively low mass stars burning helium in their cores . from stellar evolution theory ( e.g. seidel , demarque & weinberg 1987 ; castellani , chieffi & straniero 1992 ) we expect the red clump stars to have a narrow luminosity distribution with weak dependence on age and the metallicity . for given
metallicity and helium abundance , the total difference in mean clump luminosity for ages between 1 and @xmath10 is @xmath11 ( seidel et al .
the effect of metallicity on red clump giants luminosity and color is also relatively weak ( see sarajedini , lee & lee 1995 , their figs.4,5 ) . therefore , red clump stars form a suitable population with which to investigate the properties of high - metallicity systems , like the galactic bulge .
because of high and variable interstellar extinction towards the galactic bulge , we use extinction - adjusted parameter @xmath12 in our analysis ( see eq.1 ) .
we would like to be able to say something about the intrinsic width of the red clump population .
for that , we use @xmath13 color - magnitude diagrams ( cmds ) of the globular cluster 47 tuc obtained by one of the authors ( jk ) using 2.5-meter dupont telescope at the las campanas observatory .
these cmds are described in more detail by kauny & wysocka ( 1996 ) .
47 tuc is a metal rich globular cluster with @xmath14\approx-0.7 $ ] ( zinn & west 1984 ) and age of @xmath15 ( sarajedini et al .
1995 ) .
we first construct a histogram of @xmath12 values for stars in the red clump dominated region of the 47 tuc cmd ( fig.[fig1 ] ) .
the definition of the @xmath12 parameter causes that , along with the red clumps giants we are interested in , also stars from the red giant branch which happen to have the same values of @xmath12 are included into histogram .
the resulting peak in the luminosity function is quite narrow  for comparison we plotted a gaussian with @xmath16 .
we want also to be able to estimate what are the effects of possible metallicity spread ( mcwilliam & rich 1994 ; minniti et al .
1995 ) on the red clump width . to do so , we selected one of baade s window fields observed by ogle , bw4 , which has relatively uniform extinction ( see stanek 1996 ) .
we than shifted the cmd of 47 tuc to match the location of the red clumps giants in the bw4 .
this is shown in the upper part of fig.[fig2 ] .
we then plotted the histogram of @xmath17 color for red giant branch stars from both the cluster and the bw4 field ( fig.[fig2 ] , lower part ) .
the red giant branch of 47 tuc is very narrow , @xmath18 , and it is much broader for the bw4 field , with @xmath19 .
this combined with the @xmath16 measured in the previous paragraph gives us the intrinsic width of the red clump giants population in the galactic bulge @xmath20 .
we will use this number later in this paper .
we use a color - magnitude data obtained by the optical gravitational lensing experiment collaboration for 12 fields scattered across the galactic bulge to construct the 3-d model of the mass distribution in the galactic bar .
the schematic map of the fields location in the galactic coordinates is shown in fig.[fig3 ] and the coordinates of the fields are given in table  1 .
we use 10 color - magnitude diagrams ( cmds ) from udalski et al .
( 1993 ) ( fields bw1 - 6 , mm5-b , mm7-ab , tp8 ) and two cmds obtained last year specifically for the current project ( fields gb11 , gb13 ) . all the data were obtained using the 1-meter swope telescope at the las campanas observatory , operated by the carnegie institution of washington , and @xmath21 ford / loral ccd detector with the pixel size 0.44 arcsec covering @xmath22 field of view .
we did not use fields bw7 and bwc of udalski et al .
( 1993 ) because they each contain a globular cluster , which could potentially contaminate our star counts .
we also excluded fields bw8 and mm5-a because of very strong ccd bleeding columns caused by bright stars .
most of each cmd is dominated by bulge stars , with a distinct red clump , red giant , and turn - off point stars .
the part of the diagram dominated by disk stars for nine bw fields was analyzed by paczyski et al .
( 1994a ) .
stanek et al .  ( 1994 ) used well - defined population of bulge red clump giants in nine bw fields and four mm fields to find an evidence for the galactic bar .
this paper is an extension of this earlier work .
lrrrrr bw1 & 18:02:19.9 & @xmath2329:49:28 & 1.0764 & @xmath233.5894 & 5,496 bw2 & 18:02:20.6 & @xmath2330:15:18 & 0.7017 & @xmath233.8028 & 4,380 bw3 & 18:04:19.5 & @xmath2330:15:22 & 0.9103 & @xmath234.1769 & 3,865 bw4 & 18:04:18.8 & @xmath2329:49:12 & 1.2908 & @xmath233.9625 & 4,549 bw5 & 18:02:20.1 & @xmath2330:02:27 & 0.8878 & @xmath233.6961 & 5,382 bw6 & 18:03:20.8 & @xmath2330:15:10 & 0.8099 & @xmath233.9909 & 5,045 mm5b & 17:47:24.3 & @xmath2334:57:38 & @xmath234.9577 & @xmath233.4479 & 3,844 mm7a & 18:10:52.1 & @xmath2325:54:16 & 5.4272 & @xmath233.3385 & 3,572 mm7b & 18:11:39.4 & @xmath2325:55:08 & 5.4996 & @xmath233.5008 & 3,493 tp8 & 18:17:55.0 & @xmath2332:54:03 & @xmath230.0583 & @xmath237.9773 & 855 gb11 & 18:20:34.6 & @xmath2323:58:45 & 8.1703 & @xmath234.3672 & 2,339 gb13 & 17:46:58.5 & @xmath2323:01:14 & 5.2157 & 2.8113 & 5,144    to analyze the distribution of bulge red clump stars in a quantitative manner , we use the extinction - insensitive @xmath12 parameter ( paczyski et al .  1994a ;
stanek et al .
1994 ) @xmath24 where we use reddening law @xmath25 , following woniak & stanek ( 1996 ) and stanek ( 1996 ) .
the parameter @xmath12 has been defined so that if @xmath26 is independent of location then for any particular star its value is not affected by the unknown extinction ( woniak & stanek 1996 ) .
then we consider only the region of the cmd clearly dominated by the bulge red clump stars : @xmath27 for one of the fields , tp8 , the average interstellar extinction is clearly lower than for the other fields , so for tp8 the selected region is : @xmath28 on the other hand , for one of the new fields , gb13 , the average interstellar extinction is clearly higher than for the other 11 fields , so for gb13 the selected regions is : @xmath29 please note that in eqs.([eq : select][eq : select1 ] ) the range of @xmath12 is always the same .
if the value of the coefficient of the selective extinction is indeed constant throughout the galactic bulge , as found by woniak & stanek ( 1996 ) , then these different selections for tp8 and gb13 fields should not affect our calculations .
all stars that satisfy the inequalities ( [ eq : select ] ) and ( [ eq : select2],[eq : select1 ] ) were counted in bins of @xmath30 .
the result appears in fig.[fig4 ] , where we see the number of stars as a function of @xmath12 for all the fields , ordered by decreasing galactic longitude .
please note the systematic shift between the red clump giants distribution as the @xmath1 decreases , as already seen by stanek et al .
( 1994 ; 1996 ) .
please also note that the @xmath12 histogram of the field gb13 is not shifted comparing to the mm7 fields , which indicates that the coefficient of the selective extinction is indeed constant throughout the galactic bulge .
we seek to reproduce the observed luminosity function in each of the 12 fields ( fig.[fig4 ] ) assuming some analytical function for the galactic bar density distribution and fitting some simple form of the intrinsic luminosity function , the same in all the fields , for the stars in the red clump region .    for the galactic bar density distributions we follow dwek et al .
( 1995 ) approach and select three families of the analytical functions ( for detailed description see dwek et al . ) :    1 .
_ gaussian type functions _ ( g ) , described by @xmath31 2 .
_ exponential - type functions _ ( e ) , described by @xmath32 3 .
_ power - law type functions _ ( p ) , described by @xmath33    where :    @xmath34^{1/2 } \\
r_e & \equiv & \left(\frac{\left|x\right|}{x_0}+\frac{\left|y\right| } { y_0}+\frac{\left|z\right|}{z_0}\right ) \\
r_s & \equiv & \left\{\left[\left(\frac{x}{x_0}\right)^2+\left(\frac{y}{y_0}\right)^2 \right]^2+\left(\frac{z}{z_0}\right)^4\right\}^{1/4}\end{aligned}\ ] ]    all these functions are allowed to be rotated in the plane of the galaxy by the angle @xmath35 , related to dwek s et al .
angle @xmath36 by @xmath37 ( @xmath38 corresponds to the major axis of the bar pointing at us ) .
we also allow for the tilt out of the galactic plane @xmath39 , corresponding to dwek s et al .
angle @xmath39 .
we assume the distance to the center of the galaxy @xmath40 .
we parametrize the fitted luminosity function in the form @xmath41~\ ; \left[l^{-1}_{\odot}\right ] .
\label{eq : lumfun}\ ] ] the power - law with index @xmath42 is intended to represent the underlying broad population of stars , and the gaussian is intended to represent red clump stars . for a given @xmath12 bin , the number of stars in that bin is then given by @xmath43 where we take @xmath44 is a constant
, @xmath45 is a distance from the observer to the source , and @xmath46 is given by @xmath47 @xmath48 being another constant . in equation  ( [ eq : integ ] )
we assume that the number of observable stars is everywhere proportional to the density of matter and that the intrinsic luminosity function is independent of location , which gives a constant @xmath49 throughout the bar .
we now have a model of the mass distribution with four or five free parameters ( three axis plus one or two angles , eqs.[eq : gauss]-[eq : power ] ) and the intrinsic luminosity function with four free parameters ( two for the underlying power law plus two for the gaussian red clump , eq.[eq : lumfun ]  the intrinsic width of the gaussian is not fitted , see below ) , total of 8 or 9 free parameters .
we do not fit the intrinsic width of the red clump distribution @xmath50  we pre - set it to three values corresponding to @xmath51 and @xmath52 , with @xmath53 being the preferred value based on analysis in section  2 .
we should mention here that the luminosity function from eq.[eq : lumfun ] is only approximately gaussian when transferred into magnitudes . on the other hand we have 12 fields with 55 bins in each of the fields , a total of 660 bins .
this gives us number of degrees of freedom @xmath54 , which should be adequate to fit the model of the galactic bar .
please note that , unlike the case of cobe - dirbe data , we have the information about all three dimensions of the bar , but we lack cobe - dirbe spatial coverage .
table  2 presents some of the fitted parameters in the case with the value of the assumed intrinsic width of the red clump distribution @xmath55 . as we mentioned above , we also investigated cases with @xmath56 and we will discuss some aspects of this below . in all three cases we have two sub - cases : one when we allow only eight free parameters ( with @xmath57 ) and one in which we allow for the tilt out of the galactic plane ( @xmath58 ) .
ccrrrrc g1 & 24.6 & & 1514 & 691 & 463 & 2.60 & 24.5 & 0.5 & 1529 & 676 & 460 & 2.60 g2 & 24.9 & & 1239 & 609 & 438 & 2.90 & 23.9 & 2.4 & 1293 & 565 & 423 & 2.84 g3 & 24.8 & & 3851 & 1698 & 1114 & 2.43 & 24.7 & @xmath230.1 & 3857 & 1705 & 1115 & 2.43 e1 & 20.7 & & 1665 & 691 & 297 & 2.47 & 20.1 & @xmath230.1 & 1680 & 704 & 296 & 2.47 e2 & 23.8 & & 899 & 386 & 250 & 2.37 & 23.8 & 0.0 & 897 & 387 & 250 & 2.37 e3 & 23.9 & & 854 & 381 & 278 & 2.59 & 24.0 & 0.4 & 857 & 376 & 276 & 2.59 p1 & 22.7 & & 724 & 299 & 189 & 2.27 & 22.6 & @xmath230.2 & 738 & 308 & 194 & 2.27 p2 & 22.6 & & 1056 & 435 & 275 & 2.27 & 22.4 & @xmath230.2 & 1061 & 443 & 278 & 2.27 p3 & 22.8 & & 1400 & 580 & 368 & 2.27 & 22.7 & @xmath230.2 & 1389 & 582 & 368 & 2.27    we use @xmath59 statistics as both a fitting tool , and also as a relative measure of the quality of each of the models .
as we discuss later in this paper , our best fit models have values of the @xmath60 , which indicates that @xmath59 should not be used as a measure of absolute goodness of the fit .
we therefore do not give formal errors of the fitted parameters in table  2 based on usual @xmath59 confidence levels .
before we start discussing triaxial bar models , we should mention that we also tried to fit axially - symmetric set of models , described by the same functions as the triaxial bars , but with @xmath61 set to be the same as @xmath62 . not surprisingly , axially symmetric models fitted our data substantially worse than triaxial models , with the best fit model achieving @xmath63 compared to @xmath60 for the best triaxial models .    from table
2 we can immediately see that none of the models fits the data perfectly , i.e. @xmath64 is relatively high .
we discuss possible reasons for that in section  6 .
still , some analytical functions fit better then others .
we find that the whole class of power - law models ( p1 , p2 , p3 ) gives us the best fits to the data , for all three values of the @xmath50 investigated .
however , the values of @xmath64 for other analytical functions , especially for the g3 and e2 models , are not much worse then for the power - law models .
what is somewhat surprising is that the g2 model is our `` worst fit '' model , given that this was dwek et al .
best fit model
. we will discuss agreement of our work with the analysis of cobe - dirbe data in section  7 .    to illustrate how significant the differences are between the best and the worst fit models , in fig.[fig5 ] we show the same histograms as in fig.[fig4 ] , but with the best ( p1  continues line ) and worst ( g2  dashed line ) model fits shown .
for some of the fields , like gb13 or mm5-b , these differences are easily noticeable .    in fig.[fig6
] we show a cut through the e2 ( our `` recommended '' model of the galactic bar , see section  7.1 ) model at @xmath65 below the galactic plane , i.e. at the galactic latitude @xmath66 at the distance of @xmath67 . with dashed lines
we show the lines of sight for the 12 fields used in this paper .
contours start at 10% of the central value and increase by 10% .
as we discuss below , this figure would be similar for other analytical functions used .
the characteristic angles of the fitted models ( @xmath68 ) are defined in the same way for each model , so there is possible direct comparison between the models .
as can be seen from table  2 , the tilt angle @xmath39 is never important in reducing the @xmath59 values significantly .
also , except for the g2 model , angle @xmath39 is always smaller than @xmath69 .
we will therefore set @xmath70 in further discussion .    to analyze the behavior of the angle @xmath35 we plot in fig.[fig7 ] the value of this angle for various models as the function of the assumed @xmath50 .
the horizontal spread along the @xmath71-axis for each @xmath50 was done for the clarity of presentation .
it is immediately clear from fig.[fig7 ] that for a given @xmath50 the values of @xmath35 are very similar between the models ( see also table  2 ) . even for the e1 model , which has the most discrepant value of @xmath35 comparing to other models , this value is still only few degrees below the other values .
also , there is visible in fig.[fig7 ] clear trend in the sense that for larger @xmath50 given analytical model has larger inclination angle @xmath35 .
this trend was to some extent expected : to fit the observed data , the models with larger @xmath50 have to have smaller depth along the line of sight , which for triaxial objects decreases with increasing inclination angle . for the preferred value of @xmath55 (
section  2 ) the inclination angle is between @xmath72 . even taking the most extreme values of @xmath35 from fig.[fig7 ]
we find that the inclination angle is between @xmath73 .
this is a very good constraint comparing to the values of @xmath35 found in the literature ( for discussion see dwek et al .
1995 ; gerhard 1996 ; kuijken 1996 ) .
our result agrees roughly with dwek s et al .
range of @xmath74 , with an average of @xmath75 .
in our case , however , constraints on the value of @xmath35 are much better due to the nature of the data used , which , unlike the cobe - dirbe data , contains the third dimension information in the form of the shift between the red clump giants distributions ( fig.[fig4 ] ) .      unlike the characteristic angles ,
the scale lengths for different functional forms can not be compared directly .
we can however compare the axis ratios for various models . in fig.[fig8
] we show the axis ratios @xmath76 for the various models at the assumed width of the red clump @xmath77 .
the horizontal spread along the @xmath71-axis for each @xmath50 was done for the clarity of the presentation , as in fig.[fig7 ] .
let us first discuss the ratio @xmath78 , i.e. the ratio of the bar major axis to the minor axis lying in the plane of the galaxy .
this ratio for all the models does not change significantly with @xmath50 and is between @xmath79 , except for the e1 model with @xmath80 , for which @xmath81 .
this is a very tight constraint , again much tighter than @xmath82 obtained by dwek et al . from cobe - dirbe data
( see also their fig.5 ) .
on the other hand , there is a clear trend between @xmath83 and @xmath50 in the sense that for larger @xmath50 given analytical model has smaller axis ratio @xmath83 .
this was somewhat expected : as we increase the @xmath50 , @xmath61 must decrease to fit the data , but we expect that @xmath84 would remain approximately the same , since @xmath84 is the scale length perpendicular to the plane of the galaxy and it is not strongly affected by `` rotating '' the bar . also , the scatter of @xmath83 for different models is bigger than in case of @xmath78 . for the preferred value of @xmath55 , @xmath83 is between @xmath85 , again with the exception of e1 model , for which it is @xmath86 .
judging from the map of the observed fields ( fig.[fig3 ] ) , one could be worried that most of the constraint we have on the @xmath84 comes from the tp8 field , in which there are very few red clump stars ( fig.[fig4 ] and table  1 ) .
this is however not the case : even within baade s window there is a clear gradient , in the number of the red clump stars , with the distance from the galactic center .
the bw1 field has about 40% more red clump stars than the bw3 field .
in fact , we run a series of fits without the tp8 field and the resulting models were very close to what we present in this paper .
there is evidence from the gas kinematics pointing to the fact that the centroid of the gas emission from the galactic bar is offset at @xmath87 ( blitz 1995 ; weinberg 1996 ) .
we decided to add to our models one additional parameter @xmath88 which allows for the offset of the centroid of the galactic bar in the @xmath1 direction . in table  3
we list the best fit parameters of the resulting models , and also compare the @xmath64 for models with the offset and without it .
cccrrrcc g1 & 24.1 & 0.60 & 1575 & 663 & 477 & 2.46 & 2.60 g2 & 24.1 & 0.82 & 1325 & 560 & 452 & 2.64 & 2.90 g3 & 23.9 & 0.53 & 4028 & 1656 & 1155 & 2.33 & 2.43 e1 & 19.1 & 0.24 & 1745 & 723 & 303 & 2.47 & 2.47 e2 & 23.5 & 0.46 & 935 & 385 & 262 & 2.29 & 2.37 e3 & 23.2 & 0.51 & 904 & 376 & 293 & 2.44 & 2.59 p1 & 22.5 & 0.18 & 784 & 321 & 207 & 2.26 & 2.27 p2 & 22.4 & 0.17 & 1095 & 448 & 288 & 2.26 & 2.27 p3 & 22.7 & 0.27 & 1486 & 606 & 396 & 2.25 & 2.27    ccrccc e2 & 20.0 & 1000 & 1:2.00 & 1:2.50 & 1.11 g1 & 18.1 & 1478 & 1:1.96 & 1:2.42 & 1.19 g2 & 17.8 & 1298 & 1:1.87 & 1:2.27 & 1.28 g3 & 19.2 & 4537 & 1:1.97 & 1:2.63 & 1.09 e1 & 13.8 & 1650 & 1:1.90 & 1:3.48 & 1.40 e2 & 18.3 & 1000 & 1:1.98 & 1:2.58 & 1.07 e3 & 18.0 & 1075 & 1:1.91 & 1:2.43 & 1.12 p1 & 19.2 & 1565 & 1:2.00 & 1:2.69 & 1.14 p2 & 19.4 & 2653 & 1:2.01 & 1:2.72 & 1.16 p3 & 18.6 & 1869 & 1:1.99 & 1:2.62 & 1.08    it is interesting to note that all the models prefer to have positive @xmath89 , in agreement with blitz  ( 1995 ) . also , for some models , most noticeably the g2 model , introducing this additional parameter reduced @xmath64 considerably
this is not simply an effect of having one additional parameter
the tilt angle @xmath39 had hardly any effect on our models .
we conclude by saying that our results are suggestive of a small ( @xmath90 ) centroid offset of the galactic bar .
one could in principle introduce another additional parameter describing the centroid offset in the @xmath91 direction . with current data , however , we have only one field at positive galactic latitude , which provides very little lever arm to constrain an offset in @xmath91 .
we thus make no attempt to include it in our models .
in the previous section we fitted various analytical models to the luminosity function of the bulge red clumps stars and obtained the parameters of the 3-d mass distribution of the galactic bar . this procedure is subject to possible various systematic errors , which we discuss in some detail below
.      one obvious disadvantage of the whole procedure described in the previous section is that we fit only a number of selected analytical functions describing the 3-d light ( mass ) distribution of the galactic bar .
indeed , high value of the formal @xmath59 we obtained even for our best - fit model  p1 with @xmath55 and 8 free parameters has @xmath92  suggests that we either underestimate our errors ( which were taken to be poissonian @xmath93 ) or the galactic bar 3-d mass distribution is described by some other triaxial function or most probably is only roughly described by an analytical function .
nevertheless , by following dwek et al .
approach and fitting a whole set of different analytical functions with different properties we showed we can retrieve successfully at least some of the galactic bar properties .
for example , it is clear from fig.[fig7 ] that the inclination angle of the bar to the line of sight @xmath35 does not depend strongly on the model we fit and is affected stronger by the assumed value of the intrinsic width of the red clump @xmath50 .    to investigate to some extent
how strong the effect of fitting an improper analytical function is on the fitted parameters , we generated artificial random histograms of the @xmath12 distributions using the e2 model .
we then fitted this artificial data using all nine different analytical functions used in this paper . in table  4
we show both the parameters of the input model ( first row ) and the fitted parameters of all nine models . for reasons discussed in the previous section , instead of @xmath94 scale lengths
we show the axis ratios @xmath95 , as these are more relevant for comparing the agreement between the models .    as can be seen in table  4 , agreement in the fitted inclination angle
is very good .
the e1 model deviates most from the input @xmath96 , but this is also true when fitting to the real data .
this only reconfirms our strong conviction that we can constrain the inclination angle @xmath35 of the bar very well .
the @xmath97 axis ratio is also recovered remarkably well . as to the @xmath98 axis ratio , except for the e1 model ,
it is also well recovered by all other models .
we conclude by saying that all the models we use , except for the e1 model , can be used to recover the parameters of the galactic bar with similar fidelity .
it is possible that we detect red clump giants with different efficiency among the 12 fields we use in this paper .
this could affect some of the parameters we fit , some stronger than others , for example inclination angle of the bar probably would not depend very strongly on this effect , but the axis ratios probably would .
red clump stars we use in our analysis are always well above the detection threshold , @xmath99 in @xmath100 , so we do not expect a strong variation in efficiency among the fields . looking at fields which are adjacent ( like bw1 and bw5 or the two mm7 fields ) we generally find that the histograms of @xmath12 values are similar for these fields ( fig.[fig4 ] and table  1 ) .
there are two levels on which stars can be lost : the ccd detection and the construction of a cmd from @xmath101 and @xmath100 databases .
udalski et al .  (
1993 ) addressed the question of ccd star detection efficiency by placing artificial stars on the ccd and then retrieving them through the standard ogle data pipeline .
they found that the ccd detection efficiency in the interesting us magnitude range is roughly constant and is about @xmath102 , which would not change the parameters of the fit we are interested in .
we therefore make no correction for the ccd detection efficiency .
the other reason that some stars are not included in the cmd is that the star photometry is not good enough to pass a corresponding criterion .
udalski et al .  (
1993 ) used rather stringent photometric quality constrains on what stars can qualify to be included in the cmd , so only about 60% of stars from the @xmath103 databases are finally included .
these constrains are however the same for all the fields , so we neglect that in our fitting procedure .
one can imagine that a large scale gradient in the reddening law could explain the systematic shift of the red clump giants in magnitude with the galactic longitude , which we discuss in this and earlier works ( stanek et al .  1994 ; 1996 ) .
this would cause @xmath12 defined by eq.[eq : free ] to be invalid globally .
however , woniak and stanek  ( 1996 ) found no such gradient .
what they could not exclude were smaller variations of this coefficient among various fields , but again , inspection of fig.[fig4 ] shows a good agreement in red clump peak position for fields located at the approximately same position , like the bw fields .
even fields mm7 and gb13 , located at approximately the same galactic @xmath1 , but on opposite sides of the galactic plane ( table  1 ) , have practically the same red clump peak position ( fig.[fig4 ] ) , even that the gb13 field has somewhat higher extinction then the mm7 fields .
as we select a region of the cmd and then use all stars in this region to construct a luminosity function , we may expect some contamination from stars located in the galactic disk .
stanek et al .  ( 1994 ) considered this problem using bahcall & soneira  ( 1980 ) model of the galactic disk and found the contamination to be negligible ( see stanek s et al .
this is because in the region corresponding to red clump giants we expect only either bright and nearby , or evolved disk stars , of which there are very few .    a related problem : our star counts could also be contaminated by stars from the metal poor stellar spheroid .
we do not account for this population , having already 89 free parameters in our fit .
however , this should be negligible , just as was contamination by disk stars .
red clump becomes weak quite rapidly , as seen from @xmath104 histogram of the fields gb11 and tp8 , i.e. metal rich galactic bar star counts , in the region of the cmd we select for our analysis , strongly dominate
.      there seems to be a small metallicity gradient throughout the galactic bulge ( minniti et al .
1995 ; but see mcwilliam & rich 1994 ) , which could shift a little intrinsic color and luminosity of the red clump stars across the bulge .
for all the models we took that into account by assuming @xmath105 where the choice of @xmath106 or @xmath107 depends on the density model fitted .
we found that this additional parameter did not improve significantly the quality of the fits , we therefore did not present in table  2 the models with @xmath108 .
the analytical models we used in this work were identical to those used by dwek et al . , so we should be able to compare our results directly ( with the remainder that the angle @xmath35 we use differs from dwek et al .
@xmath36 by @xmath109 ) . for comparison we use dwek et al . best fitting models at @xmath110 with cutoff at @xmath111 , the same cutoff we use in this paper ( eq.[eq : integ ] ) . the dwek et al . fitting procedure ( their table  1 ) does not like power - law models ( our best fit models ) , so here we will only compare six other models we both used
.    in fig.[fig9 ]
we plot the values of @xmath112 from dwek et al .
( @xmath71-axis ) and from this work ( @xmath113-axis ) .
the dashed lines correspond to these values being equal .
there is a very good agreement between the values of @xmath84 found by dwek et al . and those we find : they can be compared directly using dwek et al . table  1 and our table  2 .
this is extremely reassuring because @xmath84 is not affected by `` rotating '' the bar , so the fact that we both get essentially the same values for @xmath84 means that , although here we are using data of entirely different nature from cobe - dirbe data , we probe in our analysis the same stellar populations .
the correlations between @xmath114 values are not nearly as good as for @xmath84 , but still rather clear . on the other hand
, there is no correlation between the inclination angles @xmath35 obtained by dwek et al . and our values .
as we discussed earlier in this paper , regardless of the fitted model we obtain almost the same value for this angle , but dwek et al .
obtained a wider range of values for this angle .
we are confident that the nature of the data we use in this work allows for much better constraint of this parameter than the 2-d cobe - dirbe infrared intensity maps .    as we mentioned in section  5 , the g2 model which was dwek et al .
best fit model fits our data worst .
there is however several models which seem to fit both cobe - dirbe and our data reasonably well .
in fact , for the g3 model the values of the bar parameters obtained by dwek et al .
( their table  1 ) are remarkably similar to ours ( table  2 ) .
the e2 model also fits reasonably well in both cases , and we suspect that if the value of @xmath35 for this model was fixed by dwek et al . to our value of @xmath115 , the agreement between @xmath116 would be much better . according to the trends we discussed in section  5 , lowering @xmath35 from dwek et al .
@xmath117 to our @xmath118 would increase both @xmath61 and @xmath62 to values closer to ours .
the e2 model might be preferred over the g3 model as it fits better the cobe - dirbe data in the inner region of the galaxy , where we do not have the cmd data from a low extinction fields .
to summarize , for those who want to use a galactic bar model which should not be grossly wrong over large range of galactocentric distances , we recommend the e2 exponential model with _ our _ values for the bar parameters : @xmath119 . in fig.[fig10 ] we show the projected light from this model for the inner @xmath120 region of the galaxy , with our fields also shown .
contours start at 10% of the central value and increase by 10% .
the asymmetry between the positive and negative @xmath1 sides of the galactic bar is visible , but not striking .
microlensing can provide us with additional information on the properties of the galactic bar .
as noticed first by kiraga & paczyski ( 1994 ) , stars in the galactic bulge lensing other stars in the bulge produce significant contribution to the microlensing optical depth , comparable to that produced by the galactic disk stars lensing bulge stars .
this effect is strongly enhanced when the galactic bulge is a bar with the major axis inclined to the line of sight by less the @xmath6 ( paczyski et al . 1994b ; zhao et al .
recently zhao & mao ( 1996 ) investigated in detail how different models of the galactic bar would differ in the optical depth for microlensing they produce , so here we want to show only some of the aspects of the microlensing by the galactic bar .    in fig.[fig11 ]
we show a map of the microlensing optical depth @xmath121 produced by our `` recommended '' e2 model in the inner @xmath120 region of the galaxy , with our fields also shown .
the mass of the galactic bar was assumed to be @xmath122 .
contours start at @xmath123 and increase also by @xmath123 to the maximum of @xmath124 .
the contribution to the optical depth from the galactic disk was not included .
details of this microlensing map would be different if we used one of other models discussed in this paper , but the overall effect of the optical depth dropping off rapidly with the distance from the galactic center , faster along the minor axis , would remain . as discussed by zhao & mao ( 1996 ) ,
some few hundred microlensing events are needed before the microlensing can really make the difference for the existing galactic bar models .
fortunately , this is very feasible judging from the existing microlensing experiments observing the galactic bar ( udalski et al .
1994 ; alcock et al .
1995 ; alard et al .
1995 ; alcock et al .
1996 ) .
another aspect of the microlensing by the galactic bar was first noticed by stanek ( 1995 ) . as can be deduced from fig.[fig6 ] , the stars from the far side of the galactic bar will be preferentially lensed if most of the lensing comes from the bar stars ( paczyski et al .
1994b ; zhao et al .
this leads to the offset in the brightness of the lensed stars , as compared to all observed stars , discussed in detail by stanek ( 1995 ) .
the value of this offset correlates very well with the depth of the galactic bar along the line of sight ( stanek 1995 , his fig.3 ) .
about a hundred of microlensing events in the red clump region of the cmd are needed to measure this effect with desired accuracy .
in this paper we have used color - magnitude data obtained by the ogle collaboration for 12 fields scattered across the galactic bulge ( fig.[fig3 ] ) to construct the three - dimensional model of the mass distribution in the galactic bar .
we model the galactic bar by fitting for all fields the observed luminosity functions in the red clump region of the color - magnitude diagram ( fig.[fig4 ] , [ fig5 ] ) .
we find that almost regardless of the analytical function used to describe the 3-d stars distribution of the galactic bar , the resulting models are inclined to the line of sight by @xmath2 ( fig.[fig7 ] ) , with axis ratios corresponding to @xmath3 ( fig.[fig8 ] ) .
this puts a strong constraint on the possible range of the galactic bar models .    comparing our result with the results of dwek et al .
( 1995 ) , we find a good agreement between the derived parameters of the models ( fig.[fig9 ] ) , but we constrain the bar parameters much tighter .
we recommend as a model which fits well both cobe - dirbe and our data the e2 model ( eq.9 ) with the values for the bar parameters : @xmath119 .
we show various properties of this model in fig.reffig6 , [ fig10 ] , [ fig11 ] .
gravitational microlensing can provide us with additional constrains on the structure of the galactic bar .