\section{Introduction}

The proximity, brightness, and rich phenomenology of NGC~1068 have made it a
key source for our current understanding of the structure and physics of
active galactic nuclei (AGN).
The bright, narrow, high-excitation emission lines of NGC~1068 define it as
the prototype of the Seyfert 2 class.
In polarized light, however, it shows the blue continuum and broad permitted
emission lines typical of Seyfert 1s (\cite{Antonucci85};
\cite{MGM91}; \cite{Code93}; \cite{Antonucci94}).
These characteristics inspired the ``unified model" of AGN in which the
different types of Seyfert galaxy result from a combination of orientation,
obscuration, and reflection of light from the continuum source
and the broad-line region (BLR). (See the review by \cite{Antonucci93}.)
For Seyfert 2 galaxies, the observer's line of sight lies near the plane of
an opaque torus that blocks a direct view of the continuum source and the BLR.
Electrons in clouds of hot gas and dust in cooler clouds above and below the
plane of the torus reflect radiation from central regions into the
observer's line of sight.
For Seyfert 1 galaxies, the observer's line of sight lies well above the plane
of the torus, resulting in an unobstructed view of the interior.

\begin{figure*}[b]
\plotfiddle{n1068f1.ps}{2.0 in} {0}{70}{70}{-225}{-290}
\caption{
\footnotesize
HUT pointing errors during the observations of NGC~1068  are obtained from
guide stars in the field of the acquisition TV camera.
In the left panel (a) we plot the location of NGC~1068's  optical nucleus relative
to the center of the HUT 12\arcsec\ aperture.
The labels A1, A2, and B identify the data groupings used for the
spectra discussed in this paper.
The right panel (b) shows the locations determined from the centroids of the
pointing errors for aperture positions A1, A2, and B relative to the optical
nucleus.
\label{n1068f1.ps}}
\end{figure*}

The obscuring torus not only blocks radiation from reaching an observer, but it
also shadows gas in the surrounding regions of the galaxy.
This anisotropic illumination can produce conical emission-line regions
frequently referred to as ``ionization cones" (\cite{Pogge89};
\cite{Tsvetanov89}; \cite{Evans91}, 1993\markcite{Evans93},
1994\markcite{Evans94}).
This standard interpretation presumes that photoionization by radiation
from the central source is the primary energy input into the
narrow-line region (NLR).
The observed line ratios corroborate this interpretation when compared to
photoionization models (e.g., \cite{FO86}; \cite{VO87}; \cite{BCR88}).
However, in addition to radiation, kinetic energy in the form of outflowing
winds and radio jets may also play a significant role in transferring energy
from the nuclear region into the surrounding galaxy along the axis of the torus.
The principal reflecting region for Seyfert 2s is most likely a wind of hot
($10^5$ K) electrons driven off the torus by X-rays from the central source
(\cite{KB86}; \cite{KL89}).
Radio jets in Seyferts are also preferentially aligned with the axis of the
ionization cones (\cite{WT94}).
Kinetic energy from these sources may be a significant input to the energy
budget of the NLR.  A number of authors have suggested that shocks from such
interactions may power a large fraction of the line emission.
Morse, Raymond, \& Wilson (1996)\markcite{MRW96}
review the status of shocks for ionizing gas in the NLR.
In cases like the bow shock models of
Wilson \& Ulvestad (1987)\markcite{Wilson87}
and Taylor, Dyson, \& Axon (1992)\markcite{Taylor92},
shocks compress the gas and enhance its radiative output, but
nuclear radiation drives the ionization.
In the ``autoionizing shock" models of Sutherland, Bicknell, \&
Dopita (1993)\markcite{Sutherland93} and
Dopita \& Sutherland (1995)\markcite{Dopita95},
ionizing photons generated in the primary
shocks themselves photoionize the surrounding gas.

A key observational feature of the autoionizing shock models is the strength
of collisionally excited far-UV emission lines.  Lines such as {\sc O~vi}
$\lambda\lambda 1032,1037$, {\sc C~iii} $\lambda 977$, and {\sc N~iii}
$\lambda 991$ have high excitation temperatures and are thus prime
coolants in the high temperature regions of fast shocks.
These lines are particularly strong in NGC~1068 as seen in HUT observations
during the Astro-1 mission (Kriss et al. 1992), and the temperature-sensitive
ratios I({\sc C~iii}] $\lambda 1909$)/I({\sc C~iii} $\lambda 977$) and
I({\sc N~iii}] $\lambda 1750$)/I({\sc N~iii} $\lambda 991$)
implied temperatures exceeding 50,000~K--- temperatures far higher than
those characteristic of thermally stable photoionized gas.
However, Ferguson, Ferland, \& Pradhan (1995)\markcite{FFP95} argued that
strong {\sc C~iii} $\lambda 977$ and {\sc N~iii} $\lambda 991$
could arise from fluorescence in photoionized gas if turbulent velocities
exceeded $\sim$1000 $\rm km~s^{-1}$.

Radio structures in NGC~1068 show a strong spatial correlation with
the emission line gas at visible wavelengths, e.g.
[{\sc O~iii}] $\lambda 5007$ (\cite{Wilson87};
\cite{Evans91}; \cite{Gallimore96}; \cite{Capetti97}), and in the
near-infrared, e.g., [Fe~{\sc ii}] 1.6435 $\mu$m (\cite{Blietz94}).
The Astro-1 HUT spectra of NGC~1068 lacked spatial resolution on scales
smaller than the $18''$ and $30''$ circular apertures used for the observations.
Neff et al. (1994\markcite{Neff94}) presented far-UV images with
$\sim 2$\arcsec\ resolution obtained with the Ultraviolet Imaging Telescope
(UIT) on the Astro-1 mission, but this broad band (1250--2000 \AA) image
did not separate line and continuum emission.
To obtain information on the spatial distribution
of the far-UV emission lines and continuum flux, we carried out
the observations described in this paper during the Astro-2 mission.
We compare our spatially resolved spectra to the far-UV UIT images and
to emission line and continuum images
at longer wavelengths obtained with HST (\cite{Dressel97}).
We find that the far-UV emission lines observed with HUT
are more extended than the [{\sc O~iii}] $\lambda 5007$ emission observed
with HST, and that it is offset to the northeast along the direction
of the radio jet.
At wavelengths greater than 1200 \AA, the UV continuum has a greater spatial
extent than the emission lines.  At shorter wavelengths, it becomes more
spatially concentrated.

In sections 2 and 3 we describe the HUT Astro-2 observations and our data
reduction process.
We then discuss in \S4 the spatial information that can be gleaned from the
HUT observations.
In \S5 we compare the HUT observations to the UIT and HST images.
We discuss the implications of our observations for the excitation of the
line emission in NGC~1068 and for the origin of the ultraviolet continuum
in \S6.  We summarize our conclusions in \S7.

\section{HUT Observations}

During the course of the 16-day Astro-2 space shuttle mission in 1995 March
we used HUT to obtain one-dimensional spectra through a 12\arcsec\ aperture at
three distinct spatial locations in the nuclear region of NGC~1068.
HUT uses a 0.9-m primary mirror in conjunction with a prime-focus,
Rowland-circle spectrograph to obtain spectra with a resolution of
$\sim$3 \AA\ spanning the 820--1840 \AA\ band.
The primary mirror and the concave grating are both coated with SiC to
provide high UV reflectivity at wavelengths shortward of 1200 \AA.
Light dispersed by the prime-focus grating is focussed onto a photon-counting
detector consisting of a micro-channel-plate intensifier with a CsI
photocathode and a phosphor-screen anode.
A 1024-diode linear Reticon array is used to detect the intensified pulses on
the anode.
Events are centroided to a half-diode precision, producing a 2048-pixel,
one-dimensional spectrogram.
Davidsen et al. (\markcite{Davidsen92}1992)
provide a detailed description of HUT.
Improvements made to HUT for the Astro-2 mission and HUT's
in-flight performance are described by Kruk et al. (\markcite{Kruk95}1995).

\begin{deluxetable}{lcccl}
\tablecolumns{5}
\tablewidth{0pc}
\tablecaption{HUT Astro-2 Observations of NGC~1068
\label{tbl:observation} }
\tablehead{
\colhead{Observation} & \colhead{UT Date} & \colhead{UT Start} &
\colhead{Integration Time} & \colhead{Comments} \\
\colhead{} & \colhead{} & \colhead{} & \colhead{(s)} & \colhead{}}
\startdata
A1d & 5 March 1995 & 02:43:28 & 716 & Day   \\
A1n & 5 March 1995 & 02:55:29 & 290 & Night \\
A2  & 5 March 1995 & 03:00:32 & 660 & Night \\
Bd  & 7 March 1995 & 15:47:53 & 496 & Day   \\
Bn  & 7 March 1995 & 15:56:14 & 888 & Night \\
\enddata
\end{deluxetable}

The HUT guidance system relies on a slit-viewing video camera and guide stars.
Using this information HUT is manually pointed by a
payload specialist aboard the space shuttle.
Video frames taken during the observation enable later reconstruction
of HUT's pointing during the observation.
Positions of guide stars in the video frames can be centroided to an accuracy
of $\sim 0.5''$ (about 0.5 pixels).  The aperture position in the field of
view also changes slightly between observations as the slit wheel rotates.
Its position can be measured to an accuracy of $\sim 0.5 ''$ by measuring the
apparent hole it leaves in images with a bright background, such as those
obtained near the earth limb in orbital daylight.
In Figure~\ref{n1068f1.ps} we show the pointing errors derived from the video
images during our observations of NGC~1068.
These errors give the location of the optical nucleus relative to the
center of the HUT $12''$ aperture.

Three dominant groupings of pointing errors are apparent in
Figure~\ref{n1068f1.ps}, and we use these as the basis for the three separate
spectra we discuss here.
During the course of the first observation (A),
the payload specialist moved the aperture $\sim3\arcsec$ southwest
to place the optical nucleus definitely within the slit.
As this was a fairly substantial pointing correction, we have split this
observation into two separate pieces.
During A1 the optical nucleus is on the very edge of the
slit and in A2 the optical nucleus is well within the slit.
The second observation (B) occurred one day later.
The ionization cone was centered within the aperture while
the optical nucleus was near the southwest edge of the aperture.

\section{HUT Data}

Due to the differences between night
and day airglow we separated the night and day portions
of observations A1 and B for independent processing.
All of observation A2 occurred during orbital night.
These data groupings are summarized in Table \ref{tbl:observation}.
We reduced the data using the standard procedures described
by Kruk et al. (\markcite{Kruk95}1995; \markcite{Kruk99}1999).
We determined background from regions free of airglow at wavelengths
shortward of the 912 \AA\ Lyman limit.
With the exception of the extremely strong geocoronal Ly$\alpha$  line at 1216 \AA\ we
fitted the airglow lines with symmetric Gaussians and then subtracted the fitted
profiles.
Fitting the geocoronal Ly$\alpha$  line is more difficult due to its
broad scattering wings.  Thus we constructed Ly$\alpha$
templates from blank field observations taken during the Astro-2 mission.
We then subtracted the appropriately scaled Ly$\alpha$  profile, including
its broad scattering wings, from each spectrum.
We flux calibrated the background-subtracted spectra by applying
a time-dependent inverse-sensitivity curve derived from HUT observations and
atmospheric models of white dwarfs (\cite{Kruk95}; \cite{Kruk99}).
A minor correction for second-order light in the 1824-1840 \AA~range was
made based on the measured intensity of the 912--920 \AA\ region.
The errors for the raw count spectra were calculated by
assuming a Poisson distribution.
These errors were propagated through the reduction process.
Figure \ref{n1068f2.ps}
shows our final calibrated spectra for each of the HUT aperture locations.

\begin{figure*}[t]
\plotfiddle{n1068f2.ps}{7.5 in} {0}{85}{85}{-260}{-76}
\caption{
Flux-calibrated HUT spectra from the Astro-2 observations.
Observation A1 (top panel) had the optical nucleus on the eastern edge of
a 12$''$-diameter aperture.
Observation A2 (middle panel) placed the optical nucleus inside the aperture
with the ionization cone region and radio jet outside the northeast edge.
Observation B (bottom panel) was centered on the ionization
cone.  The optical nucleus was on the southwest edge of the aperture.
\label{n1068f2.ps}}
\end{figure*}

\setcounter{footnote}{0}
We use the IRAF\footnote{
The Image Reduction and Analysis Facility (IRAF)
is distributed by the National Optical Astronomy
Observatories, which is operated by the Association of
Universities for Research in Astronomy,Inc. (AURA),
under cooperative agreement with the National
Science Foundation.}
task {\tt specfit} (\cite{Kriss94}) to fit the
continuum and emission lines in our spectra.
For the continuum we assume a power law shape of the form
$\rm{F}_{\lambda}=\rm{F}_{0} (\lambda/1000)^{-\alpha}$
modified by the extinction curve of Cardelli,
Clayton, \& Mathis (1989\markcite{Cardelli89}).
Keeping $\rm{R_{v}}$  fixed at 3.1, we found $\rm{E(B - V)}$ = 0.02
provides the best fit for all three spectra.  The best fit
power law normalization and spectral indices are listed in
Table 2.  Our best fit extinction is in
rough agreement with those used in previous
ultraviolet studies of NGC~1068  (\cite{Kriss92},
\cite{Snijders86}, and \cite{FFP95}).
Fortunately, due to the comparative nature of our study, our
results are insensitive to uncertainties in the extinction.

\begin{center}
\vbox to 10pt {\vfill}
{\sc Table 2\\
Continuum Parameters for the HUT Spectra of NGC~1068$\rm ^a$}
\vskip 4pt
\begin{tabular}{lcc}
\hline
\hline
Observation & $\rm{F}_{0}$ & $\alpha$ \\
\hline
A1 & 4.939 & 0.240 \\
A2 & 5.834 & 0.294 \\
B  & 8.070 & 0.415 \\
\hline
\end{tabular}
\vskip 2pt
\parbox{3.5in}{
\footnotesize
$\rm ^a$The parameters
describe a power law $\rm{F}_{\lambda}=\rm{F}_{0}(\lambda/1000)^{-\alpha}$
with $\rm{F}_{0}$ in units of $\rm{10^{-14}~ergs~cm^{-2}~s^{-1}~\AA^{-1}}$,
assuming an extinction correction of $\rm{E(B - V)}$ = 0.02.
}
\vbox to 10pt {\vfill}
\end{center}
\setcounter{table}{2}

To measure the emission lines, we fit symmetric Gaussians to the
spectral features of NGC~1068.
In our fits we have not included the wavelength region from 1200-1217 \AA\ due
to contamination from the Ly$\alpha$  geocoronal line.
However NGC~1068's  intrinsic Ly$\alpha$  emission line was sufficiently bright and redshifted
to disentangle it from geocoronal emission.
We detected and fit broad components to the
Ly$\alpha$  and \ion{C}{4} $\lambda\lambda1548,1551$ emission lines
as described by Kriss et al. (1992)\markcite{Kriss92}.
In our fits we linked the widths of the Ly$\alpha$  and \ion{C}{4} broad line components
so that they were identical.
We also linked the widths and redshifts of the blended
Ly$\beta~\lambda1026$ and \ion{O}{6} $\lambda\lambda1032,1038$ lines.

Tables \ref{tbl:A1}--\ref{tbl:B} give the best fit
fluxes, velocities, and full-width at half-maximum (FWHM)
for the emission lines in observations A1, A2, and B.
The fluxes are as observed, with no correction for extinction.
The velocities are relative to a systemic redshift of
$z = 0.0038$ (\cite{Huchra92}).
The quoted error bars are the formal
$1 \sigma$ uncertainties derived from the error matrix of our fit.
We caution that errors for observation A1 could be underestimated due to a high
percentage of day airglow contamination
and relatively large pointing deviations for this observation.
Our flux measurements and Gaussian widths are consistent with earlier data from
Astro-1 (\cite{Kriss92}) and IUE (\cite{Snijders86}).
The widths of our Ly$\alpha$  and \ion{C}{4} broad lines are in excellent agreement
with the H$\beta$ width measured by
Miller et al. (1991;\markcite{Miller91} FWHM=3030~$\rm km s^{-1}$).
As in the earlier observations by Kriss et al. (\markcite{Kriss92}1992), we were
unable to detect the \ion{O}{3}] $\lambda\lambda 1660,1666$ lines in any of our
observations.

\begin{deluxetable}{lrccc}
\tablecolumns{5}
\tablewidth{0pc}
\tablecaption{Emission Lines in HUT Observation A1 of NGC~1068
\label{tbl:A1} }
\tablehead{
        \colhead{} &
        \colhead{$\rm{\lambda_{vac}}$} &
        \colhead{Flux} &
        \colhead{$\Delta \upsilon$\tablenotemark{a}} &
        \colhead{FWHM} \\
        \colhead{Line} &
        \colhead{$\rm{(\AA)}$} &
        \colhead{$\rm{(10^{-13}~ergs~cm^{-2}~s^{-1})}$} &
        \colhead{$\rm{(km~s^{-1})}$} &
        \colhead{$\rm{(km~s^{-1})}$} }
\startdata
C~III          & \phantom{0}977.03 & $\phantom{-}1.9 \pm~0.3$ & \phantom{0}$-215 \pm \phantom{0}154$ & $\phantom{-}1904 \pm \phantom{0}409$ \nl
N~III          & \phantom{0}991.00 & $\phantom{-}0.9 \pm~0.2$ & $\phantom{-0}228 \pm \phantom{0}102$ & $\phantom{-}1201 \pm \phantom{0}214$ \nl
Ly$\beta$      & 1025.72 & $\phantom{-}2.9 \pm~0.6$ & \phantom{00}$-52 \pm \phantom{0}157$ & $\phantom{-}1782 \pm \phantom{0}302$ \nl
O~VI           & 1031.93 & $\phantom{-}3.1 \pm~0.3$ & \phantom{00}$-52 \pm \phantom{0}157$ & $\phantom{-}1782 \pm \phantom{0}302$ \nl
O~VI           & 1037.62 & $\phantom{-}5.1 \pm~0.4$ & \phantom{00}$-52 \pm \phantom{0}157$ & $\phantom{-}1782 \pm \phantom{0}302$ \nl
He~II          & 1085.15 & $\phantom{-}1.8 \pm~0.3$ & \phantom{0}$-455 \pm \phantom{0}157$ & $\phantom{-}2166 \pm \phantom{0}345$ \nl
Ly~$\alpha$~n  & 1215.67 & $11.5 \pm 2.1$ & $\phantom{-00}15 \pm \phantom{00}31$ & $\phantom{-0}849 \pm \phantom{0}120$ \nl
Ly~$\alpha$~b  & 1215.67 & $10.9 \pm 3.3$ & \phantom{0}$-565 \pm \phantom{0}145$ & $\phantom{-}2843 \pm \phantom{0}239$ \nl
N~V            & 1240.15 & $10.2 \pm~0.4$ & \phantom{0}$-263 \pm \phantom{00}52$ & $\phantom{-}2645 \pm \phantom{0}123$ \nl
C~II           & 1334.53 & $\phantom{0}0.7 \pm~0.2$ & $\phantom{-0}199 \pm \phantom{0}295$ & $\phantom{-}1428 \pm \phantom{0}533$ \nl
Si~IV+O~IV]    & 1400.00 & $\phantom{-}2.5 \pm~0.3$ & $\phantom{-00}13 \pm \phantom{0}141$ & $\phantom{-}2261 \pm \phantom{0}286$ \nl
N~IV]          & 1486.50 & $\phantom{-}2.0 \pm~0.3$ & \phantom{0}$-654 \pm \phantom{0}124$ & $\phantom{-}1791 \pm \phantom{0}275$ \nl
C~IV~n         & 1549.05 & $10.1 \pm 1.8$ & $\phantom{-00}59 \pm \phantom{00}38$ & $\phantom{-}1217 \pm \phantom{0}137$ \nl
C~IV~b         & 1549.05 & $\phantom{-}8.6 \pm 1.8$ & \phantom{0}$-450 \pm \phantom{0}145$ & $\phantom{-}2843 \pm \phantom{0}239$ \nl
He~II          & 1640.50 & $\phantom{-}8.1 \pm~0.5$ & \phantom{0}$-392 \pm \phantom{00}55$ & $\phantom{-}1817 \pm \phantom{0}119$ \nl
O~III]          & 1664.00 & $<1.5 $ & $\phantom{-}1243 \pm \phantom{0}240$ & $\phantom{-}1817 \pm \phantom{0}119$ \nl
N~III]         & 1750.00 & $\phantom{-}1.7 \pm~0.4$ & $\phantom{-0}227 \pm \phantom{0}102$ & $\phantom{-}1201 \pm \phantom{0}214$ \nl
\enddata
\tablenotetext{a}{Velocities are relative to a systemic redshift of
$z = 0.0038$ (\cite{Huchra92}).}
\end{deluxetable}

\begin{deluxetable}{lrccc}
\tablecolumns{5}
\tablewidth{0pc}
\tablecaption{Emission Lines in HUT Observation A2 of NGC~1068
\label{tbl:A2} }
\tablehead{
        \colhead{} &
        \colhead{$\rm{\lambda_{vac}}$} &
        \colhead{Flux} &
        \colhead{$\Delta \upsilon$\tablenotemark{a}} &
        \colhead{FWHM} \\
        \colhead{Line} &
        \colhead{$\rm{(\AA)}$} &
        \colhead{$\rm{(10^{-13}~ergs~cm^{-2}~s^{-1})}$} &
        \colhead{$\rm{(km~s^{-1})}$} &
        \colhead{$\rm{(km~s^{-1})}$} }
\startdata
C~III          & \phantom{0}977.03 & $\phantom{-}3.2 \pm~0.3$ & \phantom{0}$-260 \pm \phantom{00}86$ & $\phantom{-}1613 \pm \phantom{0}176$ \nl
N~III          & \phantom{0}991.00 & $\phantom{-}3.2 \pm~0.4$ & $\phantom{-0}146 \pm \phantom{0}120$ & $\phantom{-}2212 \pm \phantom{0}246$ \nl
Ly$\beta$      & 1025.72 & $\phantom{-}3.6 \pm~0.4$ & \phantom{0}$-139 \pm \phantom{00}82$ & $\phantom{-}1771 \pm \phantom{0}129$ \nl
O~VI           & 1031.93 & $\phantom{-}6.9 \pm~0.4$ & \phantom{0}$-139 \pm \phantom{00}82$ & $\phantom{-}1771 \pm \phantom{0}129$ \nl
O~VI           & 1037.62 & $\phantom{-}8.5 \pm~0.5$ & \phantom{0}$-139 \pm \phantom{00}82$ & $\phantom{-}1771 \pm \phantom{0}129$ \nl
He~II          & 1085.15 & $\phantom{-}2.1 \pm~0.3$ & \phantom{0}$-672 \pm \phantom{00}98$ & $\phantom{-}1475 \pm \phantom{0}274$ \nl
Ly~$\alpha$~n  & 1215.67 & $21.3 \pm 3.6$ & \phantom{000}$-7 \pm \phantom{00}19$ & $\phantom{-0}892 \pm \phantom{00}82$ \nl
Ly~$\alpha$~b  & 1215.67 & $36.9 \pm 5.6$ & \phantom{0}$-587 \pm \phantom{0}125$ & $\phantom{-}3086 \pm \phantom{0}232$ \nl
N~V            & 1240.15 & $16.0 \pm~0.5$ & \phantom{0}$-321 \pm \phantom{00}45$ & $\phantom{-}2646 \pm \phantom{0}103$ \nl
C~II           & 1334.53 & $\phantom{-}1.9 \pm~0.3$ & \phantom{0}$-195 \pm \phantom{00}89$ & $\phantom{-}1244 \pm \phantom{0}161$ \nl
Si~IV+O~IV]    & 1400.00 & $\phantom{-}4.7 \pm~0.4$ & $\phantom{-00}13 \pm \phantom{0}109$ & $\phantom{-}2429 \pm \phantom{0}260$ \nl
N~IV]          & 1486.50 & $\phantom{-}2.5 \pm~0.3$ & \phantom{0}$-853 \pm \phantom{0}133$ & $\phantom{-}1801 \pm \phantom{0}229$ \nl
C~IV~n         & 1549.05 & $15.3 \pm 1.7$ & $\phantom{-000}9 \pm \phantom{00}33$ & $\phantom{-}1233 \pm \phantom{00}83$ \nl
C~IV~b         & 1549.05 & $14.2 \pm 1.7$ & \phantom{0}$-614 \pm \phantom{0}125$ & $\phantom{-}3086 \pm \phantom{0}232$ \nl
He~II          & 1640.50 & $12.2 \pm~0.6$ & \phantom{0}$-370 \pm \phantom{00}42$ & $\phantom{-}1750 \pm \phantom{0}104$ \nl
O~III]          & 1664.00 & $\phantom{-}<1.7$ & \phantom{0}$-585 \pm \phantom{0}655$ & $\phantom{-}1750 \pm \phantom{0}104$ \nl
N~III]         & 1750.00 & $\phantom{-}2.3 \pm~0.5$ & $\phantom{-0}145 \pm \phantom{0}120$ & $\phantom{-}2212 \pm \phantom{0}246$ \nl
\enddata
\tablenotetext{a}{Velocities are relative to a systemic redshift of
$z = 0.0038$ (\cite{Huchra92}).}
\end{deluxetable}

\begin{deluxetable}{lrccc}
\tablecolumns{5}
\tablewidth{0pc}
\tablecaption{Emission Lines in HUT Observation B of NGC~1068
\label{tbl:B} }
\tablehead{
        \colhead{} &
        \colhead{$\rm{\lambda_{vac}}$} &
        \colhead{Flux} &
        \colhead{$\Delta \upsilon$\tablenotemark{a}} &
        \colhead{FWHM} \\
        \colhead{Line} &
        \colhead{$\rm{(\AA)}$} &
        \colhead{$\rm{(10^{-13}~ergs~cm^{-2}~s^{-1})}$} &
        \colhead{$\rm{(km~s^{-1})}$} &
        \colhead{$\rm{(km~s^{-1})}$} }
\startdata
C~III          & \phantom{0}977.03 & $\phantom{-}6.7 \pm~0.4$ & \phantom{0}$-435 \pm \phantom{00}51$ & $\phantom{-}1837 \pm \phantom{0}129$ \nl
N~III          & \phantom{0}991.00 & $\phantom{-}4.4 \pm~0.4$ & \phantom{00}$-77 \pm \phantom{00}81$ & $\phantom{-}2099 \pm \phantom{0}213$ \nl
Ly$\beta$      & 1025.72 & $\phantom{-}5.3 \pm~0.4$ & \phantom{0}$-456 \pm \phantom{00}49$ & $\phantom{-}1750 \pm \phantom{00}87$ \nl
O~VI           & 1031.93 & $10.8 \pm~0.4$ & \phantom{0}$-455 \pm \phantom{00}49$ & $\phantom{-}1750 \pm \phantom{00}87$ \nl
O~VI           & 1037.62 & $12.6 \pm~0.5$ & \phantom{0}$-455 \pm \phantom{00}49$ & $\phantom{-}1750 \pm \phantom{00}87$ \nl
He~II          & 1085.15 & $\phantom{-}3.4 \pm~0.3$ & \phantom{0}$-678 \pm \phantom{00}62$ & $\phantom{-}1557 \pm \phantom{0}131$ \nl
Ly~$\alpha$~n  & 1215.67 & $45.6 \pm 2.8$ & \phantom{00}$-86 \pm \phantom{00}11$ & $\phantom{-0}977 \pm \phantom{00}37$ \nl
Ly~$\alpha$~b  & 1215.67 & $37.8 \pm 4.4$ & \phantom{0}$-663 \pm \phantom{00}61$ & $\phantom{-}3041 \pm \phantom{0}120$ \nl
N~V            & 1240.15 & $23.9 \pm~0.5$ & \phantom{0}$-511 \pm \phantom{00}26$ & $\phantom{-}2588 \pm \phantom{00}63$ \nl
C~II           & 1334.53 & $\phantom{-}2.6 \pm~0.2$ & \phantom{0}$-186 \pm \phantom{00}48$ & $\phantom{-}1089 \pm \phantom{0}120$ \nl
Si~IV+O~IV]    & 1400.00 & $\phantom{-}7.9 \pm~0.4$ & \phantom{0}$-341 \pm \phantom{00}84$ & $\phantom{-}3131 \pm \phantom{0}165$ \nl
N~IV]          & 1486.50 & $\phantom{-}3.3 \pm~0.3$ & \phantom{0}$-928 \pm \phantom{00}87$ & $\phantom{-}1767 \pm \phantom{0}199$ \nl
C~IV~n         & 1549.05 & $24.5 \pm 1.4$ & \phantom{0}$-159 \pm \phantom{00}16$ & $\phantom{-}1127 \pm \phantom{00}47$ \nl
C~IV~b         & 1549.05 & $22.3 \pm 1.5$ & \phantom{0}$-736 \pm \phantom{00}61$ & $\phantom{-}3041 \pm \phantom{0}120$ \nl
He~II          & 1640.50 & $17.4 \pm~0.6$ & \phantom{0}$-576 \pm \phantom{00}31$ & $\phantom{-}1901 \pm \phantom{00}63$ \nl
O~III]          & 1664.00 & $\phantom{-}<1.7$ & \phantom{0}$-189 \pm \phantom{0}350$ & $\phantom{-}1901 \pm \phantom{00}63$ \nl
N~III]         & 1750.00 & $\phantom{-}2.7 \pm~0.4$ & \phantom{00}$-78 \pm \phantom{00}81$ & $\phantom{-}2099 \pm \phantom{0}213$ \nl
\enddata
\tablenotetext{a}{Velocities are relative to a systemic redshift of
$z = 0.0038$ (\cite{Huchra92}).}
\end{deluxetable}

\section{Intercomparison of the HUT Observations}

Aperture location B, centered on the ionization cone, shows both brighter far-UV
line and continuum emission than either of the other two aperture locations.
This is readily seen in Figure~3,
which compares the short wavelength portions of the HUT spectra.
To make a more quantitative comparison, we calculated
emission line and continuum flux ratios using the data
from location B as a fiducial reference.
Figures 4 and 5
show the relative emission line and continuum fluxes, respectively.

We can use the relative intensities seen at the various aperture locations
to infer the location and extent of the far-UV line and continuum emission
in NGC~1068.
For this analysis we also use the Astro-1 data from
Kriss et al. (1992).\markcite{Kriss92}
Since these data were obtained through even larger apertures ($18''$ and $30''$
diameters), they provide an overall normalization for the total flux.
(We assume that the fluxes have not varied since our 1990 Astro-1 observations.)
Qualitatively, it is helpful to first consider how one would
expect the ratios to be behave in some simple, limiting cases.
Referring to the relative aperture locations illustrated in
Figure \ref{n1068f1.ps}, one can see that a point source at the location
of the optical nucleus would show roughly the same intensity at all three
aperture locations.
If one offset a point source to the northeast, toward the center of aperture B,
its intensity in aperture B would brighten slightly as vignetting due to
the aperture edge decreased.  Conversely, its intensity as seen through
aperture locations A1 and A2 would decrease drastically as the source moved
beyond the edge of the aperture.
Comparisons to the observed Astro-1 intensities mainly constrain the extent of
the emission source.  In the limit of a large, uniformly
bright extended source, the intensities seen through apertures
A1, A2, and B would all be comparable, but they would
be fainter than that seen in the Astro-1 observation by the ratio of the
angular areas, $( 12'' / 18'')^2 = 0.44$.
For sources with angular extents smaller than the aperture sizes, the ratio
relative to Astro-1 would gradually approach unity, depending on how close
the center of emission was to the aperture edge.

As one can see in Figure~4 and Table~6,
the ratios of the line fluxes among the observations is remarkably uniform.
We find error-weighted averages for the emission line flux ratios
to be $\rm A1/B=0.42\pm0.03$ and \rm $A2/B=0.67\pm0.02$.
Within this range none of the measured flux ratios
differ appreciably (Fig.~4).
The far-UV line emission distribution appears largely
independent of species or degree of ionization.
In particular, high-excitation-temperature lines like
\ion{C}{3}~$\lambda 977$, \ion{N}{3}~$\lambda 991$,
and \ion{O}{6}~$\lambda\lambda 1034,1037$ appear to have
comparable spatial distributions, and their relative brightness seen through
aperture B suggests that most of this emission originates from a region
northeast of the optical nucleus, closer to the center of aperture B.

\vbox to 3.8in {
\vbox to 14pt { \vfill }
\plotfiddle{"n1068f3.ps"}{2.7 in} {-90}{43}{43}{-195}{240}
\parbox{3.5in}{
\small\baselineskip 9pt
\footnotesize
\indent
{\sc Fig.}~3.---
Comparison of the three HUT spectra in the 950--1100 \AA\ range.
The spectra have been smoothed with a box-car filter of width 5 pixels,
but they have have not been renormalized or scaled.
The high intensity of the B spectrum, where the aperture was centered on
the ionization cone, relative to A1 and A2, where the ionization cone was
largely outside the aperture, is apparent.
Note also the greater relative brightness of the emission lines in aperture B
compared to the continuum.
}
}
\setcounter{figure}{3}

\begin{deluxetable}{lrrrr}
\tablecolumns{5}
\tablewidth{0pc}
\tablecaption{HUT Emission Line Intensity Ratios
\label{tbl:emissionratios} }
\tablehead{
	\colhead{Line} &
        \colhead{$\lambda_{vac}$} &
	\colhead{A1/B} &
	\colhead{A2/B} &
	\colhead{B/Astro-1} \\
	\colhead{} & \colhead{(\AA)} & \colhead{} & \colhead{} & \colhead{}\\ }
\startdata
\ion{C}{3}        & 977.03  & 0.28$\pm$0.05 & 0.47$\pm$0.06& 0.88$\pm$0.17 \\
\ion{N}{3}        & 991.00  & 0.20$\pm$0.05 & 0.73$\pm$0.10& 1.13$\pm$0.31 \\
Ly$\beta$         & 1025.72 & 0.54$\pm$0.12 & 0.66$\pm$0.09& 0.43$\pm$0.09 \\
\ion{O}{6}        & 1031.93 & 0.29$\pm$0.03 & 0.64$\pm$0.05& 0.66$\pm$0.09 \\
\ion{O}{6}        & 1037.62 & 0.41$\pm$0.04 & 0.68$\pm$0.05& 0.60$\pm$0.07 \\
\ion{He}{2}       & 1085.15 & 0.53$\pm$0.09 & 0.63$\pm$0.11& 0.92$\pm$0.26 \\
Ly$\alpha$  narrow        & 1215.67 & 0.25$\pm$0.05 & 0.47$\pm$0.10& 0.45$\pm$0.03 \\
Ly$\alpha$  broad         & 1215.67 & 0.29$\pm$0.10 & 0.98$\pm$0.10& 1.59$\pm$0.35 \\
\ion{N}{5}        & 1240.15 & 0.43$\pm$0.02 & 0.67$\pm$0.03& 0.85$\pm$0.05 \\
\ion{C}{2}        & 1334.53 & 0.26$\pm$0.10 & 0.71$\pm$0.13& 0.74$\pm$0.18 \\
\ion{Si}{4}+\ion{O}{4}] & 1400$\phantom{.50}$ & 0.32$\pm$0.05 & 0.59$\pm$0.06& 0.90$\pm$0.14 \\
\ion{N}{4}]       & 1486.50 & 0.61$\pm$0.10 & 0.76$\pm$0.13& 0.65$\pm$0.15 \\
\ion{C}{4} narrow & 1549.05 & 0.41$\pm$0.08 & 0.63$\pm$0.06& 0.62$\pm$0.06 \\
\ion{C}{4} broad  & 1549.05 & 0.38$\pm$0.08 & 0.64$\pm$0.07& 1.23$\pm$0.25 \\
\ion{He}{2}       & 1640.50 & 0.46$\pm$0.03 & 0.70$\pm$0.04& 0.81$\pm$0.07 \\
\ion{N}{3}]       & 1750.00 & 0.65$\pm$0.17 & 0.84$\pm$0.24& 0.47$\pm$0.14 \\
\enddata
\end{deluxetable}

The intensity ratios of the narrow to broad components for the
Ly$\alpha$  and \ion{C}{4}~$\lambda 1549$ emission lines
show little variance among the three observations or between the Ly$\alpha$  and
\ion{C}{4} lines themselves (Table~7).
A weighted average of the three pointings and both the Ly$\alpha$  and \ion{C}{4}
emission lines yields $I_{narrow}/ I_{broad}=1.09\pm0.06$.
In contrast, previous observations by Kriss et al. (\markcite{Kriss92}1992)
through an 18\arcsec~aperture
found a more dominant contribution from the narrow lines:
$I_{\rm{Ly}\alpha,narrow}/I_{\rm{Ly}\alpha,broad}=4.28\pm0.19$
and $I_{\rm{CIV},narrow}/I_{\rm{CIV},broad}=2.19\pm0.20$.
This is likely due to the smaller aperture used in the Astro-2 observations.
These new observations include less of the extended narrow line region.
Also, in Kriss et al. (\markcite{Kriss92}1992) the Ly$\alpha$
and \ion{C}{4} narrow-to-broad line ratios
are very different, not uniform as in our observations.
A possible explanation could be that the \ion{C}{4}
narrow-line region is less extended than the
Ly$\alpha$  narrow-line region.

\vbox to 3.5in {
\plotfiddle{"n1068f4.ps"}{2.6 in} {-90}{33}{33}{-125}{200}
\parbox{3.5in}{
\small\baselineskip 9pt
\footnotesize
\indent
{\sc Fig.}~4.---
Flux ratios of selected HUT emission lines
are shown for aperture location A1 relative to B (A1/B) and
A2 relative to B (A2/B).
The dotted lines are the weighted mean ratios for A1/B and for A2/B.
}
}
\setcounter{figure}{4}

\vbox to 3.3in {
\plotfiddle{"n1068f5.ps"}{2.7 in} {-90}{35}{35}{-130}{215}
\parbox{3.5in}{
\small\baselineskip 9pt
\footnotesize
\indent
{\sc Fig.}~5.---
HUT continuum flux ratios are shown for aperture locations
A1 and A2 relative to B.
}
}
\setcounter{figure}{5}

\begin{center}
\small
{\sc Table 7\\
Intensity Ratios of Narrow to Broad Lines}
\vskip 4pt
\begin{tabular}{lrrr}
\hline
\hline
	 & \multicolumn{3}{c}{Observation}  \\
   Line  & A1  & A2  & B  \\
\hline
Ly$\alpha$   & $1.05\pm0.38$	& $0.58\pm0.13$ & $1.21\pm0.16$ \\
C~IV & $1.18\pm0.33$    & $1.08\pm0.17$	& $1.11\pm0.10$ \\
\hline
\end{tabular}
\vskip 4pt
\end{center}
\setcounter{table}{7}

\begin{deluxetable}{ccrr}
\tablecolumns{4}
\tablewidth{0pc}
\tablecaption{HUT Continuum Intensity Ratios
\label{tbl:HUTcontinuumratios} }
\tablehead{
	\colhead{Wavelength Region} &
        \colhead{Number of} &
	\colhead{A1/B} &
	\colhead{A2/B} \\
	\colhead{\AA} & \colhead{Data Points} & \colhead{} & \colhead{}\\ }
\startdata
$\phantom{0}$925--$\phantom{0}$970	& \phantom{0}89 & 0.513$\pm$0.020 & 0.681$\pm$0.027 \\
1004--1020	        & \phantom{0}40 & 0.538$\pm$0.020 & 0.701$\pm$0.025 \\
1100--1200        	&       194 & 0.636$\pm$0.011 & 0.753$\pm$0.014 \\
1422--1469        	& \phantom{0}92 & 0.687$\pm$0.017 & 0.753$\pm$0.019 \\
1674--1842        	&       327 & 0.700$\pm$0.014 & 0.776$\pm$0.017 \\
\enddata
\end{deluxetable}

\begin{deluxetable}{lcccc}
\tablecolumns{5}
\tablewidth{0pc}
\tablecaption{UV Emission Region Model Parameters
\label{tbl:hutloc} }
\tablehead{
	\colhead{Wavelength Region} &
        \colhead{$\Delta \alpha$\tablenotemark{a}} &
	\colhead{$\Delta \delta$\tablenotemark{b}} &
	\colhead{FWHM} &
	\colhead{$\chi^2$} \\
	\colhead{} &
	\colhead{(arc sec)} & \colhead{(arc sec)} & \colhead{(arc sec)} &
	\colhead{} \\ }
\startdata
Emission lines	& $+2.04\pm0.05$ & $-0.27\pm0.10$ & 5.5$\pm$0.7 & 0.12 \\
\phantom{0}925--\phantom{0}970 \AA & $+1.31\pm0.15$ & $+0.09\pm0.10$ & 5.5$\pm$0.6 & 0.55 \\
1004--1020 \AA	& $+1.27\pm0.23$ & $+0.09\pm0.23$ & 6.0$\pm$0.4 & 0.08 \\
1100--1200 \AA	& $+0.86\pm0.10$ & $+0.23\pm0.10$ & 7.5$\pm$0.5 & 0.08 \\
1422--1469 \AA	& $+0.59\pm0.15$ & $+0.50\pm0.15$ & 9.0$\pm$0.5 & 0.04 \\
1674--1842 \AA	& $+0.41\pm0.10$ & $+0.41\pm0.10$ & 7.5$\pm$0.4 & 0.22 \\
\enddata
\tablenotetext{a}{Offset in Right Ascension relative to NGC 1068's optical
nucleus.}
\tablenotetext{b}{Offset in Declination relative to NGC 1068's optical nucleus.}
\end{deluxetable}

In contrast to the emission lines,
Figure~5 and Table~8
show that the far-UV continuum has a very different
distribution from that of the far-UV emission lines.
The continuum is concentrated in location B,
but not nearly as strongly as the emission lines.
Also, unlike the emission lines, the continuum ratios {\it are} wavelength
dependent.
The continuum appears to have a broader spatial distribution
covering all three aperture locations at wavelengths longward of 1200 \AA.
The continuum flux becomes increasingly
concentrated in the ionization cone region at wavelengths shortward of 1200 \AA.

To quantify these inferences, we fit a simple model of the line and
continuum flux surface brightness distributions to the relative intensities
as seen at the different aperture locations.
The total flux from Astro-1 and the three Astro-2 measurements provide us with
four data points.
If we model the emission with a Gaussian surface brightness distribution,
we have four free parameters that are exactly constrained by our data---
total intensity, location (two coordinates), and the full-width at half maximum
(FWHM).
We determine the parameters by using a $\chi^2$ fit to a series of Gaussian
images with the FWHM incremented in steps of $0.5''$.
At each step we vary the location freely and measure the total fluxes
inside circular apertures $12''$ in diameter whose centers were fixed at the
relative locations determined by the HUT pointing errors shown in
Figure~\ref{n1068f1.ps}.

Table~9 gives the best-fit locations relative to the optical
nucleus and the sizes for the emission line and continuum flux emitting regions.
The near-zero values of $\chi^2$ in our fits result from the zero degrees of
freedom--- four data points precisely determine four free parameters.
Using $\chi^2$ statistics gives the added value of permitting us to determine
error bars for our results.
The quoted error bars are $1 \sigma$ (assuming $\Delta\chi^2 = 1$ relative
to $\chi^2_{min}$).  These errors are appropriate for {\it internal}
comparisons of relative locations and sizes; however, they do not include
the systematic errors of $\sim 0.5''$ in determining the location of the optical
nucleus in the HUT acquisition video frames.

The results of the fits roughly correspond to our qualitative conclusions.
Since the point-spread function (PSF) of HUT is $\sim4''$ (\cite{Davidsen92}),
we see that the emission line region, with FWHM=$5.5''$, is slightly resolved.
In contrast, the far-UV continuum comes from an extended region spanning many
arc seconds.  At wavelengths longer than 1200 \AA, the center of the emission
is consistent with that of the optical nucleus.  At shorter wavelengths,
the peak of the emission shifts in the direction of the emission line region,
and its size becomes comparable to that of the emission line region.

\begin{figure*}[t]
\plotfiddle{n1068f6.ps}{6.7 in} {0}{85}{85}{-260}{-76}
\caption{
Derived locations of the three HUT apertures superimposed on HST/WFPC2 and
UIT FUV images.
Panel (a) shows the full-resolution HST/WFPC2 F218W image;
panel (b) is the same image convolved to the resolution of HUT
with a Gaussian of FWHM=$3.5''$;
panel (c) shows the full-resolution HST/WFPC2 [O~III] $\lambda 5007$ image;
panel (d) shows the stacked high-resolution UIT FUV image.
North is up, and East is to the left.
The crosses mark the location of the optical nucleus.
\label{n1068f6.ps}}
\end{figure*}

The relative offsets of the different regions are a bit more puzzling.
We see that the center of the emission line region lies $\sim1.5''$ east
of the long wavelength UV continuum, in the direction of the center of aperture
B and the ionization cone.  The puzzling aspect is the $\sim 0.7''$ offset
to the south.  Given the geometry of the ionization cone, we would have
expected a slight shift to the north.
The puzzle is most likely explained by a more detailed consideration of the
actual morphology.
As one can see in Fig.~6, the northern edge of aperture A1
lies near the starburst knots visible in the HST and UIT images.
Some flux from these knots falls in the aperture due to the broad PSF and
pointing jitter.  This contributes to the large size inferred for the continuum
regions at wavelengths longward of 1200 \AA, and also shifts the fitted
centroid to the north.
This conclusion is made clearer through a detailed comparison to the HST images
that we discuss in the next section.

\section{Comparison to HST and UIT Images}

To reference the coarse spatial resolution of our far-UV 1-D aperture spectra
to higher resolution, longer wavelength images, we use archival
HST WFPC2 images of NGC~1068  obtained by H. Ford, as reduced and analyzed by
Dressel et al. (1997)\markcite{Dressel97}.
We also compare our results to the far-UV image obtained by
Neff et al. (1994\markcite{Neff94}) using UIT on the Astro-1 mission.
Table~10 summarizes nine images covering a range
of emission lines and continuum bands from the far-UV to the visible.

To compare the HUT spectra to the HST and UIT images,
the images must be registered on a common coordinate system,
convolved to the HUT spatial resolution,
and integrated over the spectrograph entrance aperture.
We start with the F218W ultraviolet continuum image as this overlaps the
long wavelength end of the HUT bandpass and is devoid of strong emission lines.
As noted in the last section, the HUT PSF has FWHM$\sim4''$.
To obtain a more precise estimate specifically for the NGC~1068 observations
that also takes into account the pointing jitter,
we convolved the F218W image with a series of Gaussians,
incrementing the FWHM in steps of $0.5''$.
As in our fits in the last section,
we measured total fluxes inside circular apertures $12''$ in diameter
corresponding to the HUT aperture locations.
By comparing the intensity ratios at the three locations measured in the
convolved HST image to those in the HUT spectra in the 1674--1842 \AA\
continuum region, we are able to determine the best fit registration
for the HUT apertures on the HST images as well as the best matching PSF.
The best-fit Gaussian has FWHM=$3.5'' \pm 0.5''$.
The registration places the peak of the UV emission in the F218W image at a
position relative to the optical nucleus as determined from the HUT video frames
of $\Delta\alpha = +0.23'' \pm 0.14''$, $\Delta\delta = -0.36'' \pm 0.14''$.
Note that this reverses the situation encountered in the last section, where
the fit to the HUT data alone placed the centroid of the 1800 \AA\ continuum
flux {\it north} of the optical nucleus.
Figure~6 shows the HUT aperture locations determined in this
process superimposed on the F218W image of NGC~1068 .
By examining Fig.~6b, where the HST image is convolved with the
HUT PSF, one can see that the starburst knots northwest of the nuclear region
contribute a significant amount of flux to aperture A1.
This is the likely explanation for the width inferred from the simple
Gaussian fit in the last section as well as the bias to the north for the
centroid of that fit.

\begin{center}
\small
{\sc Table 10\\
UIT and HST/WFPC2$\rm ^a$ Images of NGC~1068}
\vskip 4pt
\begin{tabular}{llc}
\hline
\hline
Name & Notes & Exposure Time \\
      &       & ($s$)\\
\hline
UIT/B1      & 1250--2000 \AA\              & 1629 \\
WFPC2/F218W & continuum                    & 1200 \\
WFPC2/F336W & continuum                    & 450 \\
WFPC2/F343N & [\ion{Ne}{5}] $\lambda 3425$ & 900 \\
WFPC2/F375N & [\ion{O}{2}]  $\lambda 3727$ & 900 \\
WFPC2/F502N & [\ion{O}{3}]  $\lambda 5007$ & 450 \\
WFPC2/F547M & continuum                    & 220 \\
WFPC2/F656N & $\rm{H}\alpha$                           & 450 \\
WFPC2/F791W & continuum                    & 220 \\
\hline
\end{tabular}
\vskip 2pt
\parbox{3.5in}{
\footnotesize
$\rm ^a$HST/WFPC2 images courtesy of Zlatan Tsvetanov.
}
\end{center}

The flux distribution of the F218W image also provides a good fit to the
1450 \AA\ region flux in the HUT data.  With a FWHM of $5.0'' \pm 0.5''$,
we obtain $\chi^2 = 0.07$.
The F218W spatial distribution, however, gives a significantly worse fit to the
short wavelength fluxes in the 1004--1020 \AA\ band.
Here we obtain $\chi^2 = 2.80$ for a best-fit FWHM of $2.0'' \pm 0.5''$.
This is consistent with the results of our simpler, single Gaussian model
that showed the short-wavelength radiation arising in a more compact
region--- the flux distribution in the F218W image has a greater spatial
extent than is seen through the HUT apertures at 1000 \AA.
The F218W spatial distribution is a very poor match to the emission-line
flux distribution--- $\chi^2 = 113.36$ for the best fit.
This rules out any substantial contribution of the northwest starburst knots
to the far-UV line emission seen with HUT.

If we do a fit to optimize the registration and resolution of the
[\ion{O}{3}] image,
we obtain $\chi^2 = 0.03$ for FWHM=$5.0 \pm 0.4$ arc sec and an
offset relative to the position of the F218W image of
$\Delta\alpha = +1.40'' \pm 0.10''$, $\Delta\delta = 0.59'' \pm 0.10''$.
Panel (c) of Figure~\ref{n1068f6.ps} shows the HUT aperture locations
superimposed on the [\ion{O}{3}] image of NGC~1068 .
These results imply the UV line emission has a broader spatial distribution
than that of the [\ion{O}{3}] $\lambda 5007$ emission, and it is offset
to the northeast.

The UIT image is described by Neff et al. (1994\markcite{Neff94}).
We obtained the six $2048 \times 2048$ images made using the far-UV detector
through the B1 Sr$\rm F_2$ filter from the
National Space Sciences Data Center (NSSDC).
These images had exposure times ranging from 22 s to 752 s, with the shortest
images providing unsaturated exposures of the brightest portions of the
nuclear region.
We registered and stacked these images to produce the image shown in the
lower right, Fig.~6d.
Comparing the UIT image to the convolved HST F218W image, one sees that
while similar, the UIT image has distinctly brighter emission to the NE of
the nucleus in the ionization-cone region.
This is likely due to the fact that the UIT image includes bright line emission
in its bandpass from Si~{\sc iv}$\lambda 1400$, C~{\sc iv}$\lambda 1549$,
He~{\sc ii}$\lambda 1640$, and C~{\sc iii}]$\lambda 1909$.
The enhanced emission to the NE resembles the cone defined by the [{\sc O~iii}]
$\lambda 5007$ emission shown in Fig.~6c.

Finally, we convolved the other seven HST images to the HUT spatial resolution
using a Gaussian with FWHM=$3.5''$
and measured relative intensities by integrating over
the three HUT aperture locations using the registration inferred from our fit
to the F218W image.
The resulting ratios are shown in Figure~7
and listed in Table~11.
The continuum flux ratios computed from the HST images continue
the trend with wavelength apparent in the HUT data.
The observed ratios are consistent with a broader, less concentrated source
of radiation becoming more dominant at longer wavelengths.
The distribution of line emission viewed with HST is qualitatively, but
not precisely, similar to what we see with HUT.
The very broad spatial distribution of the low ionization emission lines,
H$\alpha$ and [\ion{O}{2}] $\lambda 3727$, readily apparent in the HST images,
also shows up in the ratios illustrated in Figure~7
and Table~11.
The closest resemblance is for the highest ionization lines,
[\ion{O}{3}] $\lambda 5007$ and [\ion{Ne}{5}] $\lambda 3425$, but even
here we do not get a good match to the flux distribution measured with HUT.

\vbox to 3.1in {
\vbox to 14pt{ \vfill }
\plotfiddle{"n1068f7.ps"}{2.5 in} {-90}{35}{35}{-133}{210}
\parbox{3.5in}{
\small\baselineskip 9pt
\footnotesize
\indent
{\sc Fig.}~7.---
Emission line and continuum flux ratios
derived from HST images convolved to the
HUT resolution with a Gaussian of 3.5$''$ FWHM.  Fluxes are measured
within 12$''$ circular apertures at the HUT observation
locations determined from the fit to the F218W image.
}
}
\setcounter{figure}{7}

\section{Discussion}

\subsection{Line Emission and Potential Excitation Mechanisms}

The greater extent and larger offset to the northeast of the far-UV line
emission relative to the [\ion{O}{3}] $\lambda 5007$ emission
are at odds with a photoionized origin for the far-UV emission lines.
As argued by Kriss et al. (1992)\markcite{Kriss92}, the strengths of the
temperature-sensitive \ion{C}{3} $\lambda 977$ and \ion{N}{3} $\lambda 991$
emission lines imply high temperatures for the line-emitting gas.
For photoionized excitation, this implies high ionization parameters.
Hence, one would expect the \ion{C}{3} $\lambda 977$ and
\ion{N}{3} $\lambda 991$ emission to come from a more compact region closer to
the central ionizing source than the [\ion{O}{3}] $\lambda 5007$ emission.
Instead, the offset to the northeast along the direction of the radio jet
suggests that interaction of the jet with the line emitting clouds
has more importance for the production of these emission lines than
photoionization by the central engine.

\begin{center}
\small
{\sc Table 11\\
HST Line and Continuum Intensity Ratios}
\vskip 4pt
\begin{tabular}{lccc}
\hline
\hline
Line/Filter       & Wavelength  & A1/B   &  A2/B \\
\hline
{[\ion{Ne}{5}]}   & 3430	& 0.729  &  0.800 \\
{[\ion{O}{2}]}    & 3736	& 0.664  &  0.745 \\
{[\ion{O}{3}]}    & 5012	& 0.623  &  0.744 \\
H$\alpha$         & 6562	& 0.676  &  0.805 \\
F218W             & 2189        & 0.700  &  0.776 \\
F336W             & 3342        & 0.779  &  0.855 \\
F547M             & 5476        & 0.893  &  0.968 \\
F791W             & 7926        & 0.909  &  0.988 \\
\hline
\end{tabular}
\end{center}

The fluxes measured in the \ion{C}{3} $\lambda 977$ and \ion{N}{3} $\lambda 991$
emission lines in our Astro-2 observations are consistent with those seen in
Astro-1, given the geometrical uncertainties.
These uncertainties, the shorter observation times, and the complicating
effects of airglow in the Astro-2 observations actually make the Astro-1
measurements a more reliable measure of the total flux contributing to the
temperature-sensitive ratios I($\lambda 1909$)/I($\lambda 977$) and
I($\lambda 1750$)/I($\lambda 991$).
Using the values with 90\% confidence errors as given by
Kriss et al. (1992)\markcite{Kriss92},
improved atomic physics calculations since then allow us to update the
inferred temperature for the line-emitting gas.
For I($\lambda 1909$)/I($\lambda 977$) = $3.15 \pm 0.51$,
the diagnostic diagrams in McKenna et al. (1999)\markcite{McKenna99} give
$T = 21,700^{+1100}_{-1000}~\rm K$.
For I($\lambda 1750$)/I($\lambda 991$) = $1.46 \pm 0.34$, we obtain
$T = 28,700^{+3800}_{-2400}~\rm K$.
The revisions to the relevant atomic parameters have moved both estimates
in opposite directions--- the \ion{C}{3} temperature is now lower, while
the \ion{N}{3} value is higher.

As noted by Kriss et al. (1992)\markcite{Kriss92}, both temperature estimates
are lower limits since they rely on {\it observed} values and do not include
any corrections for extinction, which may be substantial.
Our fits to the continuum give a low extinction, $\rm E( B - V) = 0.02$,
but, as we argue below, this is not very reliable due to the wide variety
of actual sources for the continuum light and its subsequent shape.
The He~{\sc ii} recombination lines ($\lambda 4686$, $\lambda 1640$, and
$\lambda 1085$) give $\rm E( B - V) = 0.1 - 0.15$ (\cite{Kriss92};
\cite{Koski78}), and other indicators
suggest the extinction to the line emitting regions may be as high as
$\rm E( B - V) = 0.4$ (\cite{Malkan83}).
At values this high, the inferred \ion{C}{3}
temperature is 59,300~K, and the \ion{N}{3} temperature is $> 100,000$~K.

The high temperatures implied by the observed \ion{C}{3} and \ion{N}{3} line
ratios are easily matched by the autoionizing shock models computed by
Allen, Dopita, \& Tsvetanov (1998)\markcite{Allen98}.
The diagnostic diagrams they developed to discriminate between shocks
and photoionization show a clear separation between shock and photoionization
models when one compares the ratios [\ion{O}{3}]/H$\beta$ and either
\ion{C}{3}] $\lambda 1909$/\ion{C}{3} $\lambda 977$ or
\ion{C}{3}] $\lambda 1750$/\ion{C}{3} $\lambda 991$.
For either ratio, the temperatures are higher than can be produced in
typical photoionization models.
Neither is a precise match to any of the simple shock models.
Given that our large apertures encompass a wealth of unresolved complex spatial
structure, it is easy to see that any simple model could easily fail.
A clear resolution of this problem will require sub-arcsecond
observations in far-UV lines.
An experiment optimized for far-UV imaging and long-slit spectroscopy
in the 900--1200 \AA\ band could provide the key data for this problem and
many others.

Ferguson et al. (1995)\markcite{FFP95} argue that higher-than-expected
intensities of \ion{C}{3} $\lambda 977$ and \ion{N}{3} $\lambda 991$
can be produced in photoionized gas by fluorescent processes.
To produce the intensities observed in NGC~1068, however, their models
require turbulent velocities of $> 1000~\rm km~s^{-1}$.
While line widths this high are observed in NGC~1068, it is hard to see
how one can avoid fast shocks in clouds with such high internal turbulence.
The fluorescent enhancement of photoionized emission is formally possible,
but it is also certainly an incomplete physical picture of the excitation
and emission process under such extreme hydrodynamic conditions.
One can also get a velocity spread of $1000~\rm km~s^{-1}$ in an accelerating
wind, but one would expect this to occur in a very small spatial region,
essentially a point source with a size on the order of the electron scattering
mirror.  The spatial distribution inferred from our data definitely excludes
a point-like source, and so we rule out this alternative.

Another frequently cited indicator of shock excitation is
the 1.6435 $\mu$m transition of [\ion{Fe}{2}].
Given the close spatial correlation between the morphology
of the radio jet in NGC~1068 and of the [\ion{Fe}{2}] emission,
Blietz et al. (1994)\markcite{Blietz94} concluded that the emission was
produced in gas irradiated by nuclear X-rays, or in shocks excited by
an outflow or jet from the nucleus.
Examining the morphology of the [\ion{Fe}{2}] emission in their Figure 1,
one can see that it peaks near the optical/IR nucleus, but that a significant
fraction of the emission arises from a more extended region $\sim 1''$
to the northeast along the axis of the radio jet.
This is quite similar to the morphology we infer for the far-UV emission
lines from our own observations.

\subsection{The Origin of the Continuum Radiation}

The strong wavelength dependence of the morphology of the continuum emission
suggests that a variety of sources contribute to the continuum light
seen in the HUT spectra.
This supports the conclusions of Neff et al. (1994\markcite{Neff94}) that
``several sources probably contribute to the integrated UV emission of NGC~1068 ,"
including dust and electron-scattered nuclear radiation, starlight, and
line and continuum emission from the NLR.
On spatial scales of 30\arcsec\ and at wavelengths longward of 1200 \AA,
starlight is a major contributor.
Heckman et al. (1995)\markcite{Heckman95} discuss the aperture-size
dependence of the nuclear UV flux from NGC~1068 \ and conclude that apertures
that include the starburst ring contain substantial amounts of UV flux
from starlight.
The broader spatial extent we observe for radiation at wavelengths $>1200$ \AA\
(see \S 4) suggests that much of this light has a stellar origin.
This stellar flux is directly visible in the spectra from
the $30''$-aperture Astro-1 observations (\cite{Kriss92}).
As discussed in \S5 and shown in Fig.~6b, portions of the starburst ring
also contribute to the flux seen in the A1 spectrum.

Below 1200 \AA\ the increasing concentration of the continuum emission in
the vicinity of the ionization cone can be attributed to a stronger relative
contribution of scattered nuclear radiation.
This is likely due to two factors that cannot be disentangled at the
spatial resolution of our observations.
First, some of this light must be due to the electron scattering mirror
inferred from the spectropolarimetric observations
(\cite{Antonucci85}; \cite{MGM91}; \cite{Code93}; \cite{Antonucci94}).
Second, the NE dust cloud visible in the imaging polarimetry of
Miller, Goodrich, \& Matthews (1992)\markcite{MGM91}
and in the UV spectropolarimetry of Code et al. (1993)\markcite{Code93}
falls squarely within the HUT aperture location B.
Since the scattering cross section of dust rises rapidly with shorter
wavelengths, the intensity of scattered light from this cloud will form
an increasingly large fraction of the signal in aperture B at wavelengths
shortward of 1200 \AA.
The roughly $5''$ extent we infer for the 1000 \AA\ continuum light is
comparable to the $5''$ distance of the NE cloud from the optical nucleus,
and could account entirely for the size we infer from our observations.

To assess the extent to which our observed fluxes are due to scattered
radiation from the obscured AGN, we compare our results to spectropolarimetric
observations obtained with HST (\cite{Antonucci94}) and with the
Wisconsin Ultraviolet Photo-Polarimeter Experiment (WUPPE) (\cite{Code93}).
At 1800 \AA, the portion of the UV flux attributable to direct reflection of
the central engine by the electron scattering mirror is
$3.3 \times 10^{-14}~\rm ergs~cm^{-2}~s^{-1}~\AA^{-1}$ (\cite{Antonucci94}).
The NE dust cloud contributes
$\sim 1.1 \times 10^{-14}~\rm ergs~cm^{-2}~s^{-1}~\AA^{-1}$ (\cite{Code93}).
The sum accounts for only $\sim$80\% of the flux we observe at 1800 \AA\ at
aperture position B in our observations.
At aperture locations A1 and A2, this total accounts for 89\% and 73\% of the
observed flux, respectively.
As locations A1 and A2 largely exclude the NE dust cloud, the fraction
of the observed UV radiation we see at these locations attributable to
scattered AGN radiation is likely even less.
Given that the A1 and A2 spectra are significantly redder than the B spectrum,
we conclude that diffusely distributed starlight and/or additional scattered
(but reddened) nuclear flux is present within the central $\sim6''$
surrounding the nucleus.

\section{Conclusions}

We have described three spatially distinct HUT observations of NGC~1068.
During observation A1 the optical nucleus was near the eastern edge of the
aperture while in A2 the nucleus was near the northeastern edge.
In the third observation, B, we centered the aperture on the ionization cone
with the optical nucleus near the southwestern edge.

The observed fluxes and emission line ratios are consistent with those
seen in our Astro-1 observations.
The far-UV emission lines are brightest in aperture B in the
vicinity of the ionization cone and the radio jet.
All the far-UV emission lines have similar spatial distributions,
including the high-excitation-temperature lines
\ion{C}{3} $\lambda977$, \ion{N}{3} $\lambda991$,
and \ion{O}{6} $\lambda\lambda1032,1037$.
We found observation B to be brighter than A1 and A2 in far-UV
emission lines by factors of $\sim2.4$ and $\sim1.5$ respectively.
From comparison to HST images, we find that
the far-UV emission lines have a spatial distribution
relative to the [\ion{O}{3}] $\lambda5007$ emission that is
more extended and offset further to the northeast along the direction of the
radio jet.

Using updated atomic physics (\cite{McKenna99}) to re-evaluate the
temperatures implied by the ratios I($\lambda 1909$)/I($\lambda 977$) and
I($\lambda 1750$)/I($\lambda 991$),
we find a lower limit from the \ion{C}{3} ratio of 21,200~K,
and a lower limit of 27,200~K from the \ion{N}{3} ratio.
Given the high ionization parameter normally required to produce
such high temperatures in photoionized gas, we would have expected
the spatial distribution inferred from our observations to be more
compact and more concentrated near the nucleus.
Since it appears more extended and offset along the axis of the radio jet,
we conclude that our Astro-2 observations provide more evidence for this
emission to arise in shock-heated rather than photoionized gas.

The continuum appears to have a broader spatial
distribution than the emission lines,
but it grows progressively more concentrated in the
ionization cone region at wavelengths shorter than 1200 \AA.
At longer wavelengths an increasing portion of the flux appears to come
from starlight.  Within aperture location A1, this arises in the starburst
knots northwest of the optical nucleus.
Within aperture B, $\sim$80\% of the flux can be attributed to
scattered nuclear radiation from the electron scattering mirror
and from the NE dust cloud.  The remaining flux must come from
more diffusely distributed starlight or scattered (but reddened)
nuclear radiation within the central $\sim6''$.

\acknowledgements
We are grateful to Z. Tsvetanov for providing the reduced HST images
and to D. Ubol for help in producing Fig. 6.
J. G. appreciates helpful conversations with B. Greeley and R. Telfer.
This research was supported in part by NASA contract
NAS 5-27000 to the Johns Hopkins University
and by NASA Long-Term Space Astrophysics grant NAG 5-3255.


\section{Introduction}

Preserving the coherence of quantum states and controlling their unitary
evolution is one of the fundamental goals of Quantum Information Processing
\cite{Lo:book}. When the system Hamiltonian is invariant under particle
permutations, the exchange operator $E_{ij}$ interchanging particles $i$ and
$j$ is a constant of the motion, and definite symmetry of a state will be
conserved. Models of quantum computers based on identical bosons or fermions
must of course respect this elementary requirement. It was pointed out in a
recent paper \cite{Ruskai:99} that active quantum error correcting codes
(QECCs) \cite{Shor:95Steane:96a} designed to correct independent
single-qubit errors, will fail for {\em identical} particles in the presence
of exchange errors. The reason is that exchange acts as a {\em two}-qubit
error which has the same effect as a simultaneous bit flip on two different
qubits. Of course, QECCs dealing explicitly with multiple-qubit errors are
also available, so that exchange errors can readily be dealt with provided
one accepts longer codewords than are needed to deal with single-qubit
errors \cite{Gottesman:97Knill:97b}. For example, in Ref. \cite{Ruskai:99} a
nine-qubit code is presented which can correct all single-qubit errors and
all Pauli exchange errors. This is to be compared with the five-qubit
``perfect'' code which protects (only) against all single-qubit errors \cite
{Laflamme:96}.
While the nine-qubit code is longer than the ``perfect'' code, it is
shorter than a code required to protect against {\em all} two-qubit errors.

A different error model which has been considered by several authors is that
in which qubits undergo {\em collective}, rather than independent errors
\cite{Palma:96Duan:98Zanardi:98a,Zanardi:97c,Lidar:PRL98,Lidar:PRL99}. The
underlying physics of this model has a rich history: it dates back at least
to Dicke's quantum optics work on superradiance of atoms coupled to a
radiation field, where it arose in the consideration of systems confined to
a region whose linear dimensions are small compared to the shortest
wavelength of the field \cite{Dicke:54}. The model was later treated
extensively by Agarwal in the context of spontaneous emission \cite
{Agarwal:book}. It was only recently realized, however, that in the
collective decoherence model there exist large decoherence-free subspaces
(DFSs), which are ``quiet'' Hilbert subspaces in which no
environmentally-induced errors occur at all \cite{Zanardi:97c,Lidar:PRL98}.
Such subspaces offer a passive protection against decoherence. Collective
decoherence is an assumption about the manner in which the environment
couples to the system: instead of independent errors, as assumed in the
active QECC approach, one assumes that errors are strongly correlated, in
the sense that all qubits can be permuted without affecting the coupling
between system and bath. This is clearly a very strong assumption, and it
may not hold exactly in a realistic system-bath coupling scenario. To deal
with this limitation, we have shown recently how DFSs can be stabilized in
the presence of errors that perturb the exact permutation symmetry, by
concatenating DFSs with QECCs \cite{Lidar:PRL99}. Concatenation is a general
technique that is useful for achieving fault tolerant quantum computation
\cite{Knill:98Preskill:99,Aharonov:99}, and trades stability of quantum
information for the price of longer codewords. It is our purpose here to
analyze the effect of exchange errors on DFSs for collective decoherence.
These errors are fundamentally different from those induced by the
system-bath coupling, since they originate {\em entirely} from the internal
system Hamiltonian. We will show that by use of the very same concatenation
scheme as introduced in Ref. \cite{Lidar:PRL99} (which was designed
originally to deal with system-bath induced errors), a DFS can be stabilized
in the presence of exchange errors as well.

The structure of the paper is as follows. We begin by briefly recalling the
origin of the exchange interaction in Sec. \ref{exchange} and present some
Hamiltonians modelling this interaction. We then present, in Sec. \ref
{DFS-review}, a short review of the Hamiltonian theory of DFSs. Next we
discuss in Sec. \ref{const} the simplest model, of constant exchange matrix
elements, and show that DFSs are immune to exchange errors in this case. Our
main result is then presented in Sec. \ref{arbitrary}, when we analyze the
effect of exchange errors in the case of arbitrary exchange matrix elements.
We show that a DFS is invariant under such errors, and conclude that
concatenation with a QECC can generally stabilize DFSs against exchange.

\section{Modelling Exchange in Qubit Arrays}

\label{exchange}

The exchange interaction arises by virtue of permutation symmetry between
identical particles, in addition to some interaction potential. Exchange is
caused by the system Hamiltonian, and is unrelated to the coupling to an
external environment. Exchange thus induces an extraneous {\em unitary}
evolution on the system, but does not lead to decoherence. To model exchange
it is sufficient to consider a Hamiltonian of the form
\begin{equation}
H_{{\rm ex}}=\frac{1}{2}\sum_{i\neq j}^{K}J_{ij}E_{ij},  \label{eq:Hex}
\end{equation}
where the sum is over all qubit pairs, $J_{ij}$ are appropriate matrix
elements, and
\begin{equation}
E_{ij}|\epsilon _{1},...,\epsilon _{i},...,\epsilon _{j},...,\epsilon
_{K}\rangle =|\epsilon _{1},...,\epsilon _{j},...,\epsilon _{i},...,\epsilon
_{K}\rangle .  \label{eq:Eij}
\end{equation}
$E_{ij}$ thus written is a general exchange operator operating on qubits $i$
and $j$ of a $K$-qubit state.

Typical examples of Hamiltonian leading to exchange are \cite{March:85vol1}:
(i) the Heisenberg interaction between spins
\begin{equation}
H_{{\rm Heis}}=\frac{1}{2}\sum_{i\neq j}J_{ij}^{{\rm H}}{\bf S}_{i}\cdot
{\bf S}_{j}
\end{equation}
where ${\bf S}_{i}=(\sigma _{i}^{x},\sigma _{i}^{y},\sigma _{i}^{z})$ is the
Pauli matrix vector of spin $i$; (ii) the Coulomb interaction
\begin{equation}
H_{{\rm Coul}}=\frac{1}{2}\sum_{i\neq j}\sum_{\sigma ,\sigma ^{\prime
}}J_{ij}^{{\rm C}}a_{i\sigma }^{\dagger }a_{i\sigma ^{\prime }}a_{j\sigma
^{\prime }}^{\dagger }a_{j\sigma }
\end{equation}
where $a_{i\sigma }^{\dagger }$ ($a_{i\sigma }$) is the creation
(annihilation) operator of an electron of spin $\sigma $ in Wannier orbital $
i$. $J_{ij}$ is the exchange matrix element and is given for electrons by
\begin{equation}
J_{ij}^{{\rm C}}=-e^{2}\int d{\bf r}d{\bf r}^{\prime }\frac{w^{\ast }({\bf r}
-{\bf R}_{i})w({\bf r}^{\prime }-{\bf R}_{i})w^{\ast }({\bf r}^{\prime }-
{\bf R}_{j})w({\bf r}-{\bf R}_{j})}{|{\bf r}-{\bf r}^{\prime }|},
\end{equation}
where ${\bf R}_{i}$ is a lattice vector and $w$ is a Wannier function \cite
{March:85vol1}. This is a rather generic form for the exchange matrix
element; in other cases $w$ would be replaced by the appropriate wave
function and the Coulomb interaction $e^{2}/|{\bf r}-{\bf r}^{\prime }|$ by
the appropriate potential. The important point to notice is that the
exchange integral depends on the overlap between the wave functions at
locations $i$ and $j$. Thus exchange effects generally decay rapidly as the
distance $|{\bf R}_{i}-{\bf R}_{j}|$ increases. An important simplification
is possible when interactions beyond nearest neighbors can be neglected
(i.e., $J_{ij}=0$ if $i$ and $j$ are not nearest neighbors) in which case
the approximation $J_{ij}\equiv J$ is often made.

In the Coulomb case the interpretation of $a_{i\sigma }^{\dagger }a_{i\sigma
^{\prime }}a_{j\sigma ^{\prime }}^{\dagger }a_{j\sigma }$ as an exchange
operator is quite clear: spin $\sigma $ is destroyed at orbital $j$ and is
created at orbital $i$, while spin $\sigma ^{\prime }$ is destroyed at
orbital $i$ and is created at orbital $j$. The net effect is that spins $
\sigma $ and $\sigma ^{\prime }$ are swapped between the electrons in
orbitals $i$ and $j$. In the Heisenberg case one can verify that the
operator ${\bf S}_{i}\cdot {\bf S}_{j}$ also implements an exchange. Let $I$
denote the identity operator, $X_{i}$ the Pauli matrix $\sigma _{i}^{x}$
operating on qubit $i$, etc. A qubit state is written as usual as a
superposition over $\sigma _{z}$ eigenstates $|0\rangle $ and $|1\rangle $.
Then, defining
\begin{equation}
E_{ij}\equiv \frac{1}{2}\left( I+{\bf S}_{i}\cdot {\bf S}_{j}\right) =\frac{
1 }{2}\left( I+X_{i}\otimes X_{j}+Y_{i}\otimes Y_{j}+Z_{i}\otimes
Z_{j}\right) ,
\end{equation}
it is easily checked that Eq.~(\ref{eq:Eij}) is satisfied \cite{Burkard:99}.

\section{Review of Decoherence Free Subspaces}

\label{DFS-review}

We briefly recall the Hamiltonian theory of DFSs \cite
{Lidar:PRL99,Zanardi:97a}. Given is a system-bath interaction Hamiltonian
\begin{equation}
H_{{\rm SB}}=\sum_{\lambda }F_{\lambda }\otimes B_{\lambda },
\end{equation}
where $F_{\lambda }$ and $B_{\lambda }$ are, respectively, the system and
bath operators. The decoherence free states are those, and only those states
$\{|\psi \rangle \}$ which are simultaneous degenerate eigenvectors of all
system operators appearing in $H_{{\rm SB}}$:
\begin{equation}
F_{\lambda }|\psi \rangle =c_{\lambda }|\psi \rangle .  \label{eq:DFS}
\end{equation}
The eigenvalues $\{c_{\lambda }\}$ do not depend on $|\psi \rangle$. The
subspace spanned by these states is a DFS, meaning that under $H_{{\rm SB}}$
the evolution in this subspace is unitary, and there is no decoherence. This
results in a passive protection against errors, to be contrasted with the
active QECC approach. Of particular interest is the case where the $
\{F_{\lambda }\}$ are collective operators, such as the total spin operators
\begin{equation}
S_{\alpha }=\sum_{i=1}^{K}\sigma _{i}^{\alpha }\qquad \alpha =x,y,z.
\label{eq:S_a}
\end{equation}
These operators satisfy $su(2)$ commutation relations, just like the local $
\sigma _{i}^{\alpha }$ Pauli operators:
\begin{equation}
\lbrack S_{\alpha },S_{\beta }]=2i\varepsilon _{\alpha \beta \gamma
}S_{\gamma }.
\end{equation}
This situation, referred to above as collective decoherence, arises when the
bath couples in a permutation-invariant fashion to all qubits. In this paper
we shall confine our attention to collective decoherence, and shall employ
the term DFS exclusively in this context \cite{Lidar:PRA99Pauli}. With a
system-bath interaction of the form $H_{{\rm SB}}=\sum_{\alpha }S_{\alpha
}\otimes B_{\alpha }$ (as, e.g., in the Lamb-Dicke limit of the spin-boson
model), a combinatorial calculation shows (see appendix) that the number of
encoded qubits is $\log _{2}K!/\left[ (K/2+1)!(K/2)!\right] \stackrel{
K\rightarrow \infty }{\longrightarrow }K- \frac{3}{2}\log _{2}K$. The
resulting decoherence free code thus asymptotically approaches unit
efficiency (number of encoded qubits per physical qubits), and is therefore
of significant interest. In the collective decoherence case, since the $
S_{\alpha }$ are the generators of the semisimple Lie algebra $su(2)$, the
DFS condition Eq.~(\ref{eq:DFS}) is satisfied with $c_{\alpha }=0$ \cite
{Lidar:PRL98}. This means that the decoherence free states $\{|j\rangle \}$
are $su(2)$ {\em singlets}: they are states of zero total spin, and belong
to the one-dimensional irreducible representation of $su(2)$. For example,
for $K=2$ qubits undergoing collective decoherence, there is just one
decoherence free state: $(|01\rangle -|10\rangle )/\sqrt{2} $, i.e., the
familiar singlet state of two spin 1/2 particles. For as few as $K=4$ there
are already two singlet states, spanning a full encoded decoherence free
qubit \cite{Zanardi:97c}.

\section{Decoherence Free States and Exchange with Constant Matrix Elements}

\label{const}

A simple situation arises when we can assume that $J_{ij}\equiv J/K$ for
{\em all} $i,j$, i.e., without the restriction to nearest neighbor
interactions. This long-range Ising model is thermodynamically equivalent to
the mean-field theory of metallic ferromagnets, and there exist some
examples of metals (e.g., HoRh$_{4}$B$_{4}$) that are well described by it
\cite{Mattis:book}. At present the relevance of such materials to quantum
computer architectures is not clear.
We also stress that in the vast majority of physical examples
exchange correlations decay exponentially fast with the distance
between particles. The case of arbitrary exchange matrix elements is
dealt with in the next section.
We consider the long-range model here
mainly for its simplicity and for the remarkable result that DFSs are
completely immune to exchange errors in this case.

We have for ${\bf S}=(S_{x},S_{y},S_{z})$
\begin{equation}
S^{2}={\bf S\cdot S}=3KI+2\sum_{i\neq j}X_{i}\otimes X_{j}+Y_{i}\otimes
Y_{j}+Z_{i}\otimes Z_{j},
\end{equation}
so that the exchange Hamiltonian can be rewritten as
\begin{eqnarray}
H_{{\rm ex}} &=&\frac{J}{4K}\sum_{i\neq j}^{K}\left( I+X_{i}\otimes
X_{j}+Y_{i}\otimes Y_{j}+Z_{i}\otimes Z_{j}\right)   \nonumber \\
&=&\frac{J}{8K}\left[ \left( K^{2}-4K\right) I+S^{2}\right] .
\label{eq:Hex2}
\end{eqnarray}
Whereas the DFS condition guarantees that no decoherence is caused by the
coupling to the bath, uncontrolled unitary evolution due to the system
Hamiltonian may still pose a significant problem. This is exactly the case
in the presence of exchange errors, as described above. However, using
Eq.~(\ref{eq:Hex2}) and recalling that the DFS states have zero total
spin, we
see that in the collective decoherence case the DFS is in fact automatically
protected against exchange errors:
\begin{equation}
H_{{\rm ex}}|\psi \rangle =\left[ \nu I+\frac{J}{8K}S^{2}\right] |\psi
\rangle =\nu {\rm \,}|\psi \rangle ,
\end{equation}
where $|\psi \rangle $ is a DFS state and $\nu \equiv (J/K)(K^2-4K)/8$. Since the
constant $\nu $ does not depend on $\psi $, this implies that under the
unitary evolution generated by $H_{{\rm ex}}$, a DFS state accumulates an
overall, global phase $e^{i\nu {\rm \,}t}$. This phase is not measurable and
does not affect the decoherence time. Thus in the $J_{ij}\equiv J$ model a
DFS does not undergo exchange errors, and the smallest DFS ($K=4$ physical
qubits) already suffices to encode a full logical qubit.

\section{Decoherence Free States and Arbitrary Exchange Matrix Elements}

\label{arbitrary}

We now analyze the effect of arbitrary exchange errors on DFS states for
collective decoherence. We show that by concatenation with QECCs, DFSs can
be stabilized against these errors.

\subsection{Decoherence Free Subspaces are Invariant Under Exchange}

The exchange operator commutes with the total spin operators. To see this,
use the definitions of these operators in Eqs.~(\ref{eq:Eij}) and (\ref
{eq:S_a}), and let $S_{\alpha }^{ij}\equiv \left( \sum_{k\neq i,j}^{K}\sigma
_{k}^{\alpha }\right) $. Since they act on different qubits, $S_{\alpha
}^{ij}$ clearly commutes with $E_{ij}$. Now, using $\sigma ^{\alpha }\sigma
^{\beta }=\delta _{\alpha \beta }I+i\varepsilon _{\alpha \beta \gamma
}\sigma ^{\gamma }$:
\begin{eqnarray}
S_{\alpha }E_{ij} &=&\left[ S_{\alpha }-\left( \sigma _{i}^{\alpha }+\sigma
_{j}^{\alpha }\right) \right] E_{ij}+\left( \sigma _{i}^{\alpha }+\sigma
_{j}^{\alpha }\right) E_{ij}  \nonumber \\
&=&\left( \sum_{k\neq i,j}^{K}\sigma _{k}^{\alpha }\right) E_{ij}+\frac{1}{2
}\left( \sigma _{i}^{\alpha }+\sigma _{j}^{\alpha }\right) \left(
I+\sum_{\beta =x,y,z}\sigma _{i}^{\beta }\otimes \sigma _{j}^{\beta }\right)
\nonumber \\
&=&S_{\alpha }^{ij}E_{ij}+\sigma _{i}^{\alpha }+\sigma _{j}^{\alpha
}+\frac{i}{2}\sum_{\beta ,\gamma }\varepsilon _{\alpha \beta \gamma }\left( \sigma
_{i}^{\beta }\otimes \sigma _{j}^{\gamma }+\sigma _{i}^{\gamma }\otimes
\sigma _{j}^{\beta }\right) .
\end{eqnarray}
The last term in this expression vanishes since $\varepsilon _{\alpha \beta
\gamma }=-\varepsilon _{\alpha \gamma \beta }$ and we are summing over all $
\beta ,\gamma $ values. Thus
\begin{equation}
S_{\alpha }E_{ij}=S_{\alpha }^{ij}E_{ij}+\sigma _{i}^{\alpha }+\sigma
_{j}^{\alpha }=E_{ij}S_{\alpha }.
\end{equation}
Now let $|\psi \rangle $ be a decoherence free state (which it is for
collective decoherence iff $S_{\alpha }|\psi \rangle =0$
\cite{Lidar:PRL98}). Since $S_{\alpha }\left( E_{ij}|\psi \rangle
\right) =E_{ij}S_{\alpha
}|\psi \rangle =0$, it follows that $E_{ij}|\psi \rangle $ also is
decoherence free. We have thus proved:

{\it Theorem I.} Let ${\tilde {{\cal H}}}$ be a decoherence free subspace
against collective decoherence errors, and $E_{ij}$ an exchange operation on
qubits $i$ and $j$. Then $E_{ij}{\tilde {{\cal H}}}={\tilde {{\cal H}}}$.

The significance of this result is that exchange errors act as errors on the
{\em encoded} DFS qubits, i.e., they keep decoherence free states inside the
DFS. The exact way in which these errors are manifested is a difficult
problem. Exchange operations are transpositions in the language of the
permutation group $S_K$, and are known to generate this group
\cite{Schensted}. For a given number $K$ of physical qubits the action
of the exchange operators will realize a $2^K$-dimensional reducible representation of
$S_K$. The DFS for collective decoherence on these $K$
qubits is the set of one-dimensional irreducible subspaces in the
irreducible representations (irreps) of
$S_K$, which appear with multiplicity $\frac{K!}{(K/2+1)!(K/2)!}$ (see
appendix). For
$K=4$ the DFS is 2-dimensional (=multiplicity of the 1D
irreps), encoding one qubit. Therefore in this case
exchange errors will act as the usual Pauli errors on a single
(encoded-) qubit. Correction of exchange errors for $K=4$ can then be
done entirely within the DFS
by using a quantum error correcting code for single-qubit errors. This
observation naturally leads one to
consider concatenating the DFS codewords with such a code, as done in
the concatenated code of Ref. \cite{Lidar:PRL99}. That paper
showed that the concatenated DFS-QECC code can in fact deal with the more
general case of {\em both} errors inside the DFS (as is our case here), {\em
and} errors that take states outside of the DFS. We investigate the
correction of exchange errors in detail for the $K=4$ case in the next
subsection. For $K>4$ qubits, the dimension of the DFS is greater than
2 (e.g., for $K=6$ it is 5), and the action of exchange errors will
correspondingly be represented by higher dimensional irreps of
$S_K$. To correct such unitary errors it will be necessary to resort
to codes for ``qu$k$its'' ($k>2$), such as stabilizer codes for
higher-dimensional sytems \cite{Gottesman:98}, or
polynomial codes \cite{Aharonov:99}. We defer the discussion of this
case to a future publication \cite{us:tbp} and focus here on the $K=4$ case.

\subsection{Effect of Exchange Errors on the Four Qubit Decoherence Free
Subspace}

Suppose that the qubits undergo collective decoherence in clusters of four
identical particles, but different clusters are independent (as they might,
e.g., in a polymer with an {\sc AAAABBBBAAAA...} type of order). Each
cluster would then support a two-dimensional DFS, accommodating a single
encoded DFS qubit. The $K=4$ physical qubits DFS states can then be written
as \cite{Zanardi:97a}

\begin{equation}
|\tilde{0}\rangle =\frac{|a\rangle -|b\rangle }{2},\quad |\tilde{1}\rangle =
\frac{2|c\rangle -|a\rangle -|b\rangle }{2\sqrt{3}} ,
\end{equation}
where
\begin{equation}
|a\rangle \equiv |0110\rangle +|1001\rangle ,\quad |b\rangle \equiv
|1010\rangle +|0101\rangle ,\quad |c\rangle \equiv |0011\rangle
+|1100\rangle .
\end{equation}
Note that the mutually orthogonal states $|a\rangle $, $|b\rangle $ and $
|c\rangle $ are sums of complementary states. Moreover, the four qubits play
a symmetrical role (i.e., $0$ and $1$ appear equally in all four positions
in both $|\tilde{0}\rangle $ and $|\tilde{1}\rangle $). This dictates that
exchange of qubits in symmetrical positions should have the same effect. In
other words, we expect $E_{12}$ to be indistinguishable from $E_{34}$, and
similarly for $\{E_{13},E_{24}\}$ and $\{E_{23},E_{14}\}$ (although for a
linear geometry most physical exchange mechanisms will yield $
|J_{23}|>|J_{14}|$). This expectation is born out; in the $\{|\tilde{0}
\rangle ,|\tilde{1}\rangle \}$ basis we find, using straightforward algebra,
that the six exchange operators can be written as
\begin{eqnarray}
E_{12} &=&E_{34}=\left(
\begin{array}{cc}
-1 & 0 \\
0 & 1
\end{array}
\right) =-\bar{Z}  \nonumber \\
E_{13} &=&E_{24}=\tilde{R}\left( \pi /3\right) =\frac{\sqrt{3}}{2}\bar{X}+
\frac{1}{2}\bar{Z}  \nonumber \\
E_{14} &=&E_{23}=\tilde{R}\left( -\pi /3\right) =-\frac{\sqrt{3}}{2}\bar{X}+
\frac{1}{2}\bar{Z},  \label{eq:Pauli-DFS}
\end{eqnarray}
where $\tilde{R}\left( \theta \right) =R\left( \theta \right) Z$, and $
R\left( \theta \right) =\left(
\begin{array}{cc}
\cos \theta & -\sin \theta \\
\sin \theta & \cos \theta
\end{array}
\right) $. Thus\ $\tilde{R}\left( \theta \right) $ is a reflection about the
$x$-axis followed by a counter-clockwise rotation in the $x,y$ plane. In
writing these expressions, the matrices operate on column vectors such that $
|\tilde{0}\rangle ={{{{{{\ {
{1  \choose 0}
} }}}}}}$ and $|\tilde{1}\rangle ={{{{{{\ {
{0  \choose 1}
} }}}}}},$ and $\bar{X},\bar{Z}$ are the {\em encoded} Pauli matrices, i.e.,
the Pauli matrices acting on the DFS states (and {\em not} on the physical
qubits). Thus, exchange errors act as encoded Pauli errors on the DFS states.

Using this observation, it is possible to protect DFS states against such
errors by concatenation with a QECC designed to correct single qubit errors.
The critical point is that this QECC will now correct single {\em encoded}
qubit errors. This requires an additional encoding layer to be constructed.
In particular, suppose we add such an encoding layer by using DFS qubits to
build codewords of the five-qubit ``perfect'' QECC \cite{Laflamme:96}. These
codewords have the form $|\tilde{\epsilon}_{1}\rangle |\tilde{\epsilon}
_{2}\rangle |\tilde{\epsilon}_{3}\rangle |\tilde{\epsilon}_{4}\rangle |
\tilde{\epsilon}_{5}\rangle $, where $\epsilon =0,1$, and $j$ in $\tilde{
\epsilon}_{j}$ is now a {\em cluster} index. Since the five-qubit QECC can
correct any single qubit error, in particular it can correct the specific
errors of Eq.~(\ref{eq:Pauli-DFS}) which the encoded DFS qubits would
undergo under an exchange interaction on the physical qubits in a given
cluster. However, the error detection and correction procedure must be
carried out sufficiently fast so that exchange errors affecting multiple
blocks at a time do not occur, or else concatenation with a code that can
deal with $t>1$ independent errors is needed. The typical time scale for
exchange errors to occur is $1/2|J_{ij}|$, where $J_{ij}$ is the relevant
exchange matrix element.

This 20-qubit concatenated DFS-QECC code is precisely the one discussed in
Ref. \cite{Lidar:PRL99}, where it was shown that it offers protection
against general collective decoherence symmetry breaking perturbations. Our
present result shows that this concatenated code is stable against exchange
errors as well.

We note that it is certainly possible to find a shorter QECC than the
five-qubit one to protect against the restricted set of errors in Eq.~(\ref
{eq:Pauli-DFS}). However, such a code would not offer the full protection
against general errors that is offered by concatenation with the perfect
five-qubit code, and thus would not be as useful.

\section{Summary and Conclusions}

To conclude, in this paper we considered the effect of unitary exchange
errors between identical qubits on the protection of quantum information by
decoherence free subspaces (DFSs) defined for a qubit array. We showed that
in the important case of ideal collective decoherence (qubits are coupled
symmetrically to the bath), for which a perfectly stable DFS is obtained,
DFSs are additionally invariant to exchange errors. Thus such errors
generate rotations inside the DFS, but do not take decoherence free states
outside of the DFS. Consequently it is possible to use, without any
modification, the concatenated DFS-QECC scheme of Ref. \cite{Lidar:PRL99} in
order to protect DFSs against exchange errors, while at the same time
relaxing the constraint of ideal collective decoherence, and allowing for
symmetry breaking perturbations. This is useful for quantum memory
applications. Since exchange interactions preserve a DFS, an
interesting further question is whether they can be used {\em
constructively} in order to perform controlled logic operations inside
a DFS. We have found the answer to be positive, and
that it is actually
possible to perform universal computation in a fault tolerant manner
inside a DFS for collective decoherence using only two-body exchange
interactions \cite{Bacon:PRL99}.

{\it Acknowledgments}.--- This material is based upon work supported by the
U.S. Army Research Office under contract/grant number DAAG55-98-1-0371, and
in part by NSF CHE-9616615.