text:
# VUTH 00-8FNT/T-00/04WU-B 00-08 Semi-inclusive structure functions in the spectator model

## I Introduction

Totally inclusive deep-inelastic scattering (DIS) in the past years provided us with rather precise knowledge of the distribution functions of the proton and the neutron, helping us to understand their inner structure and raising questions yet unanswered. Semi-inclusive DIS displays even richer characteristics. Detecting at least one of the hadrons produced in the high-energy scattering process and measuring its momentum, one is then sensitive not only to the distribution of partons inside the target hadron, but also to the mechanism of hadronization, through which a quark gives rise to a jet of new hadrons. We are then able to measure not only the distribution functions, but also the so-called fragmentation functions. Neither the distribution nor the fragmentation functions can be calculated from first principles within perturbative QCD, because they belong to the non-perturbative realm of bound states. Therefore, models are required.

If only the dominant light-cone component of the momentum of the outgoing hadron is measured, its transverse components being integrated over, then the structure functions appearing in cross-sections will be products of a distribution and a fragmentation function. The already established knowledge of the distribution functions enables one to extract the shape of the fragmentation functions (cf. ) and to compare it with other results coming from different experiments, such as electron-positron annihilation.

On the other hand, if we manage to measure the transverse momentum of the outgoing hadron we have the opportunity to study some new interesting distribution and fragmentation functions. In particular, already to leading order in an expansion in powers of $`\frac{1}{Q}`$ we have access to chiral odd and time-reversal odd functions, as well as functions related to the transverse momentum carried by quarks relative to their parent hadrons momentum . These functions are presently considered to be very interesting and their experimental measurement is in progress (HERMES, COMPASS, RHIC). The only major inconvenience of dealing with cross sections differential in the transverse momentum of the outgoing hadron is that the structure functions are no more simple products of a distribution and a fragmentation function, but rather convolutions of those.

In this context model evaluations of the structure functions can be very useful. The spectator model proved to be in qualitative agreement with the known (transverse momentum integrated) distribution and fragmentation functions evolved at low energies . Therefore, we expect it to give reasonable estimates for the convolution integrals in semi-inclusive DIS, provided that the inclusion of transverse momentum of partons does not spoil factorization properties, as it is usually assumed .

We are aware that our results cannot be considered as precise predictions of experimental quantities, because of the limitations and the simplicity of the model.

The model incorporates only valence quark distribution and fragmentation, neglecting the presence of sea-quarks, gluons and evolution. Therefore, it is supposed to reproduce the shape of the valence-quark distribution and fragmentation at a low energy scale, which is not known a priori. To give an estimate of this scale, one can compare the total momentum carried by quarks as given by the spectator model with the same quantity as given by parameterizations of the distribution functions at a known energy scale. Such a comparison suggests that the spectator model is valid at an energy scale of about 0.2-0.3 GeV.

In principle, the results we obtain need to be evolved to higher energy scales by means of evolution equations for a final comparison with experiment. Evolution equations for transverse momentum dependent functions are not yet known. In this article, therefore, we refrain from taking into account radiative corrections. Nevertheless, we are confident to describe correctly the main features and properties of the structure functions at low (intrinsic) transverse momentum, since perturbative corrections are expected to affect mainly the high transverse momentum tails of these functions.

The spectator model is a semi-phenomenological model, which relies mainly on the idea of describing the hadron as an ensemble of a free parton (struck in the scattering process) and a fictitious, unphysical particle, the spectator, with the right quantum numbers.

The model, at least in its present version, cannot describe time-reversal odd functions, since it does not incorporate final state interactions. On the other hand, the advantages of the model resides in the fact that it is simple, it is covariant and it gives a clear estimate of the distribution of partonic transverse momentum. Last but non least, the model can be treated in wide parts analytically. Some numerical integrations are required only when the cross section is kept differential also in the transverse momentum of the produced hadron.

In Sec. II we briefly review the general formalism utilized to treat semi-inclusive DIS, with emphasis on the structure functions calculable using the spectator model. In Sec. III we present the basic properties of the model and we give the results of our analysis, highlighting what are the broad features that could possibly be observed in experiments.

## II Semi-inclusive DIS

The cross section for a semi-inclusive DIS event can be written in terms of the contraction between a lepton and a hadron tensor. For instance in the target rest frame we can make use of the formula

$$\frac{\mathrm{d}\sigma }{\mathrm{d}E^{}\mathrm{d}\mathrm{\Omega }\mathrm{d}^3P_h}=\frac{\alpha ^2}{Q^4}\frac{E^{}}{E}L_{\mu \nu }W^{\mu \nu }$$
(1)
where $`P_h`$ is the momentum of the outgoing hadron,$`Q^2=q^20`$ is the absolute value of the virtuality of the exchanged photon, $`\alpha =e^2/4\pi `$ is the fine structure constant, $`E`$ and $`E^{}`$ are the energy of the incident lepton before and after the collision, respectively. $`L_{\mu \nu }`$ is the lepton tensor and $`W^{\mu \nu }`$ is the hadronic tensor.

Following a purely phenomenological approach, the hadronic tensor can be parameterized using scalar structure functions. A priori, the maximum number of independent structure functions in an arbitrary DIS process is 16. Since we will be interested only in electromagnetic scattering, this number is reduced to 9 by the gauge invariance condition, $`q_\mu W^{\mu \nu }=q_\nu W^{\mu \nu }=0`$. A convenient set of functions is formed by the spherical basis structure functions (see, e.g., ).

In the spherical basis, constraints coming from angular momentum conservation take a simpler form. From now on, we want to consider only leading terms in an expansion over $`\frac{1}{Q}`$. In the case of polarized semi-inclusive scattering, helicity conservation considerations allow us to say that five of the structure functions vanish at leading order, leaving only four non-zero structure functions. The complete form of the hadronic tensor at leading order is then

$$W^{\mu \nu }=g_{}^{\mu \nu }\frac{W_T}{2}+\mathrm{i}\epsilon _{}^{\mu \nu }\frac{W_{TT}^{}}{2}+\left(2\widehat{P}_h^\mu \widehat{P}_h^\nu +g_{}^{\mu \nu }\right)\frac{W_{TT}}{2}+\widehat{P}_h^{\{\mu }\epsilon _{}^{\nu \}\rho }\widehat{P}_{h\rho }\frac{\overline{W}_{TT}}{2},$$
(2)
where the curly brackets indicate symmetrization of the indices. For the definitions of the tensor structures appearing in the formula we need to define a normalized time-like and a normalized space-like vector

$$\widehat{t}^\mu =\frac{2x_B}{Q}\left(P^\mu q^\mu \frac{Pq}{q^2}\right),\widehat{q}^\mu =\frac{q^\mu }{Q},$$
(3)
by means of which we can define the structures

$`g_{}^{\mu \nu }`$ $`=`$ $`g^{\mu \nu }+\widehat{q}^\mu \widehat{q}^\nu \widehat{t}^\mu \widehat{t}^\nu ,`$ (4)
$`\epsilon _{}^{\mu \nu }`$ $`=`$ $`\epsilon ^{\mu \nu \alpha \beta }\widehat{q}_\alpha \widehat{t}_\beta ,`$ (5)
$`\widehat{P}_h^\mu `$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{g_{}^{\mu \rho }P_{h\rho }}{|g_{}^{\mu \rho }P_{h\rho }|}}.`$ (6)
By calculating the contraction between leptonic and hadronic tensor we can eventually write the following formula for the cross section  in the target rest-frame:

$$\frac{\mathrm{d}\sigma }{\mathrm{d}E^{}\mathrm{d}\mathrm{\Omega }\mathrm{d}^3P_h}=\sigma _M\frac{Q^2}{2|𝒒|^2}\frac{1}{ϵ}\left\{W_T+ϵ\left(W_{TT}\mathrm{cos}2\varphi +\overline{W}_{TT}\mathrm{sin}2\varphi \right)+\lambda _e\sqrt{1ϵ^2}W_{TT}^{}\right\},$$
(7)
where $`\lambda _e`$ is the helicity of the electron, $`\varphi `$ is the angle between the scattering plane and the outgoing hadron’s momentum (see Fig. 1) and where

$`\sigma _M`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{4\alpha ^2E_{}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}}{Q^4}}\mathrm{cos}^2\left({\displaystyle \frac{\theta }{2}}\right),`$ (8)
$`ϵ^1`$ $`=`$ $`1+2{\displaystyle \frac{|𝒒|^2}{Q^2}}\mathrm{tan}^2\left({\displaystyle \frac{\theta }{2}}\right),`$ (9)
$`\theta `$ being the scattering angle of the electron.

The dominant contribution to the structure functions can be calculated from the cut-diagram shown in Fig. 2, representing the hadronic part of a DIS event.

According to the usual factorization assumption, the diagram is divided into a hard partonic scattering amplitude and two soft parts, $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ in Fig. 2, called correlation functions. The dominant momentum direction in the upper (lower) part is given by the direction of the outgoing (target) hadron momentum, $`P_h`$ ($`P`$). Quark momenta are almost collinear to their parent hadrons allowing for small transverse components. Using Feynman rules we can give an explicit formula describing the diagram of Fig. 2, which represents the hadronic tensor:

$$2MW^{\mu \nu }=dk^+\mathrm{d}^2𝒌_Tdp^{}\mathrm{d}^2𝒑_T\delta ^{(2)}(𝒑_T+𝒒_T𝒌_T)\underset{q}{}e_q^2\text{Tr}[\mathrm{\Phi }_q\gamma ^\mu \mathrm{\Delta }_q\gamma ^\nu ]|_{\stackrel{p^+=x_BP^+}{k^{}=P_h^{}/z}},$$
(10)
where $`p`$ and $`k`$ are the momenta of the quarks respectively before and after absorbing the photon, and the index $`q`$ denotes quark flavor.

In this formula we use light-cone components of vectors in an infinite momentum frame of reference where the “$`+`$” direction is given by the momentum of the target hadron, $`P`$, the “$``$” direction is given by the momentum of the outgoing hadron, $`P_h`$, and the photon momentum is purely spatial. In this frame of reference the incident photon has a transverse component, $`𝒒_T`$. In alternative, one can work with frames of reference where the photon does not have transverse components, which are particularly convenient from the experimental point of view. In such frames the outgoing hadron’s momentum acquires a transverse component, which we will denote as $`𝑷_h`$. It can be shown that the relation between these transverse components is :

$$𝒒_T=\frac{𝑷_h}{z}.$$
(11)
In Eq. (10) the already mentioned correlation functions appear. They are second-rank Dirac tensors defined as:

$`\mathrm{\Phi }_{q(mn)}(p,P,S)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{d}^4x}{(2\pi )^4}\mathrm{e}^{\mathrm{i}px}P,S|\overline{\psi }_{(n)}^q(x)\psi _{(m)}^q(0)|P,S},`$ (12)
$`\mathrm{\Delta }_{q(mn)}(k,P_h,S_h)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{d}^4x}{(2\pi )^4}\mathrm{e}^{+\mathrm{i}kx}0|\psi _{(m)}^q(x)|P_h,S_hP_h,S_h|\overline{\psi }_{(n)}^q(0)|0}.`$ (13)
If we decompose each correlation function on a basis of 16 Dirac structures, $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_i`$, we get the following result:

$$2MW^{\mu \nu }=\underset{i,j}{}\frac{\text{Tr}[\mathrm{\Gamma }^i\gamma ^\mu \mathrm{\Gamma }^j\gamma ^\nu ]}{4}\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}2}z\mathrm{d}^2𝒌_T\mathrm{d}^2𝒑_T\delta ^{(2)}(𝒑_T+𝒒_T𝒌_T)\underset{q}{}e_q^2\mathrm{\Phi }_q^{[\mathrm{\Gamma }_i]}\mathrm{\Delta }_q^{[\mathrm{\Gamma }_j]}.$$
(14)
where we defined

$`\mathrm{\Phi }_q^{[\mathrm{\Gamma }^i]}(x_B,𝒑_T)`$ $`=`$ $`\frac{1}{2}dp^{}\text{Tr}[\mathrm{\Phi }_q\mathrm{\Gamma }^i]|_{p^+=x_BP^+}\text{(distribution functions)},`$ (15)
$`\mathrm{\Delta }_q^{[\mathrm{\Gamma }^i]}({\displaystyle \frac{1}{z}},𝒌_T)`$ $`=`$ $`\frac{1}{4z}dk^+\text{Tr}[\mathrm{\Delta }_q\mathrm{\Gamma }^i]|_{k^{}=\frac{P_h^{}}{z}}\text{(fragmentation functions)}.`$ (16)
As a last step, the distribution and fragmentation functions are usually divided in several components, named $`f_1`$, $`g_{1L}`$, $`g_{1T}`$, …for what concerns the distribution functions, or $`D_1`$, $`G_{1L}`$, $`G_{1T}`$, …for what concerns the fragmentation functions. We will not pursue the definition of all the possible functions, for which we simply refer to . Note that each function should always carry its flavor index, $`q`$, although in the rest of this section we are going to skip it.

Using Eq. (14) and comparing it with Eq. (2) we can establish relations connecting structure functions to distribution and fragmentation functions. In the following equations we will use the frame of reference and the angles specified in Fig. 1. We chose to fix the $`x`$ axis in the direction of $`𝑷_h`$ to simplify the formulae. Note that we do not lose generality because in the hadronic tensor there is no dependence on the angle $`\varphi `$ due to cylindrical symmetry around the $`z`$ axis.

To be more concise we will denote the convolution integral appearing in the hadronic tensor and the summation over quark flavors with the following notation:

$$\left\{\mathrm{}\right\}=\frac{2z}{M}dk_xdk_ydp_xdp_y\delta \left(p_x\frac{|P_h|}{z}k_x\right)\delta (p_yk_y)\underset{q}{}e_q^2\mathrm{},$$
(17)
where the specific form of the $`\delta `$-functions is due to relation (11) and to the particular choice of our $`x`$ axis.

We are going to divide the structure functions in various contributions arising from particular polarization conditions. Therefore, we are going to label each contribution with two indices, the first one referring to the polarization of the target ($`U`$ for unpolarized, $`L`$ for longitudinally polarized, $`T`$ for transversely polarized) and the second one referring to the polarization of the outgoing hadron. We will not take into account the cases when both hadrons are polarized.

The resulting form of the structure functions is

$`W_T(x_B,z,P_h)`$ $`=`$ $`W_T^{\text{[UU]}}(x_B,z,P_h)+|S_h|\mathrm{sin}\beta _hW_T^{\text{[UT]}}(x_B,z,P_h),`$ (21)
$`W_T^{\text{[UU]}}(x_B,z,P_h)=\left\{f_1D_1\right\},`$
$`W_T^{\text{[UT]}}(x_B,z,P_h)=\left\{{\displaystyle \frac{k_x}{M_h}}f_1D_{1T}^{}\right\},`$
$`W_{TT}(x_B,z,P_h)`$ $`=`$ $`|S_{}|\mathrm{sin}\beta W_{TT}^{\text{[TU]}}(x_B,z,P_h),`$ (26)
$`W_{TT}^{\text{[TU]}}(x_B,z,P_h)=\left\{{\displaystyle \frac{k_x}{M_h}}h_{1T}H_1^{}+{\displaystyle \frac{k_yp_yp_x+k_xp_yp_y}{2M^2M_h}}h_{1T}^{}H_1^{}\right\},`$
$`W_{}^{}{}_{TT}{}^{}(x_B,z,P_h)`$ $`=`$ $`\lambda W_{}^{}{}_{TT}{}^{\text{[LU]}}(x_B,z,P_h)+|S_{}|\mathrm{cos}\beta W_{}^{}{}_{TT}{}^{\text{[TU]}}(x_B,z,P_h)`$ (35)
$`+\lambda _hW_{}^{}{}_{TT}{}^{\text{[UL]}}(x_B,z,P_h)+|S_h|\mathrm{cos}\beta _hW_{}^{}{}_{TT}{}^{\text{[UT]}}(x_B,z,P_h),`$
$`W_{}^{}{}_{TT}{}^{\text{[LU]}}(x_B,z,P_h)=\left\{g_{1L}D_1\right\},`$
$`W_{}^{}{}_{TT}{}^{\text{[TU]}}(x_B,z,P_h)=\left\{{\displaystyle \frac{p_x}{M}}g_{1T}D_1\right\},`$
$`W_{}^{}{}_{TT}{}^{\text{[UL]}}(x_B,z,P_h)=\left\{f_1G_{1L}\right\},`$
$`W_{}^{}{}_{TT}{}^{\text{[UT]}}(x_B,z,P_h)=\left\{f_1{\displaystyle \frac{k_x}{M_h}}G_{1T}\right\},`$
$`\overline{W}_{TT}(x_B,z,P_h)`$ $`=`$ $`\lambda \overline{W}_{TT}^{\text{[LU]}}(x_B,z,P_h)|S_{}|\mathrm{cos}\beta \overline{W}_{TT}^{\text{[TU]}}(x_B,z,P_h),`$ (41)
$`\overline{W}_{TT}^{\text{[LU]}}(x_B,z,P_h)=\left\{{\displaystyle \frac{k_xp_xk_yp_y}{MM_h}}h_{1L}^{}H_1^{}\right\},`$
$`\overline{W}_{TT}^{\text{[TU]}}(x_B,z,P_h)=\left\{{\displaystyle \frac{k_x}{M_h}}h_{1T}H_1^{}+{\displaystyle \frac{k_xp_xp_xk_yp_yp_x}{M^2M_h}}h_{1T}^{}H_1^{}\right\}.`$
Here, $`\lambda `$ ($`\lambda _h`$) and $`S_{}`$ ($`S_h`$) denote helicity and transverse spin of the target (outgoing) spin-$`\frac{1}{2}`$ hadron.

The distribution functions (small letters) are understood to be functions of the variables $`x_B`$ and $`𝒑_T^2`$, while the fragmentation functions (capital letters) are understood to be functions of $`\frac{1}{z}`$ and $`𝒌_T^2`$.

The functions $`D_{1T}^{}`$ and $`H_1^{}`$ are time-reversal odd and they cannot be studied in the framework of our model. For this reason we will only be able to calculate the first term of the structure function $`W_T`$ and the full structure function $`W_{TT}^{}`$.

Due to Eq. (11), integrating over the outgoing hadron transverse momentum, $`𝑷_h`$, corresponds to integrating over $`z^2𝒒_T`$. Performing this integration leads to a deconvolution of the right-hand side of Eq. (14). Consequently, the integrals over $`𝒑_T`$ and $`𝒌_T`$ can be performed separately for the distribution and fragmentation functions. Therefore, the structure functions integrated over $`𝑷_h`$ reduce to:

$`W_T(x_B,z)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{M}}\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}2}zf_1(x_B)D_1(\frac{1}{z}),`$ (42)
$`W_{TT}^{}(x_B,z)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\lambda }{M}}\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}2}zg_1(x_B)D_1(\frac{1}{z})+{\displaystyle \frac{\lambda _h}{M}}\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}2}zf_1(x_B)G_1(\frac{1}{z}),`$ (44)
where the new $`𝒑_T`$ and $`𝒌_T`$-independent distribution and fragmentation functions are defined as:

$$\begin{array}{ccccccc}\hfill f_1(x_B)& & \mathrm{d}^2𝒑_Tf_1(x_B,𝒑_T^2),\hfill & & \hfill g_1(x_B)& & \mathrm{d}^2𝒑_Tg_{1L}(x_B,𝒑_T^2),\hfill \\ \hfill D_1(\frac{1}{z})& & z^2\mathrm{d}^2𝒌_TD_1(\frac{1}{z},𝒌_T^2),\hfill & & \hfill G_1(\frac{1}{z})& & z^2\mathrm{d}^2𝒌_TG_{1L}(\frac{1}{z},𝒌_T^2).\hfill \end{array}$$
(45)
## III Calculation of structure functions

### A The spectator model

For a numerical evaluation of the structure functions we will employ the distribution and fragmentation functions as estimated with a spectator model . The basic assumption of the spectator model is that the target hadron can be divided into a quark and an effective spectator state with the required quantum numbers, which is treated to a first approximation as being on-shell with a definite mass. In the case of a baryon target, this second particle is a diquark.

The same idea applies to the hadronization process: the quark fragments into a jet, from which one hadron is eventually detected; the remnants of the jet are treated effectively as an on-shell spectator state. If the detected hadron is a baryon, the second particle is an anti-diquark.

The vertex coupling the baryon to quark and diquark includes a form factor preventing the quark from being far off-shell. The large $`p^2`$-behavior of the form factor is controlled by a parameter $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$.

We quote the analytic form of the distribution and fragmentation function we are going to use for numerical evaluation of the structure functions as obtained in . The diquark’s spin in the simplest approach can be either $`0`$ (scalar diquark with mass $`M_s`$) or $`1`$ (axial vector diquark with mass $`M_a`$). For both cases the functions can be cast in the same analytic form where only some parameters take different values. Therefore, we label the functions with an additional index $`i\{s,a\}`$ to distinguish between the two cases. The functions we consider are:

$`f_1^i(x_B,𝒑_T^2)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{n_i^2(1x_B)^3}{16\pi ^3}}{\displaystyle \frac{(m+x_BM)^2+𝒑_T^2}{(𝒑_T^2+l_i^2(x))^4}},`$ (46)
$`g_{1L}^i(x_B,𝒑_T^2)`$ $`=`$ $`a_i{\displaystyle \frac{n_i^2(1x_B)^3}{16\pi ^3}}{\displaystyle \frac{(m+x_BM)^2𝒑_T^2}{(𝒑_T^2+l_i^2(x))^4}},`$ (48)
$`g_{1T}^i(x_B,𝒑_T^2)`$ $`=`$ $`a_i{\displaystyle \frac{n_i^2(1x_B)^3}{16\pi ^3}}{\displaystyle \frac{2M(m+x_BM)}{(𝒑_T^2+l_i^2(x))^4}},`$ (50)
$`D_1^i(\frac{1}{z},𝒌_T^2)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{N_i^2(1z)^3}{16\pi ^3z^4}}{\displaystyle \frac{(m+\frac{1}{z}M_h)^2+𝒌_T^2}{(𝒌_T^2+L_i^2(z))^4}},`$ (52)
$`G_{1L}^i(\frac{1}{z},𝒌_T^2)`$ $`=`$ $`a_i{\displaystyle \frac{N_i^2(1z)^3}{16\pi ^3z^4}}{\displaystyle \frac{(m+\frac{1}{z}M_h)^2𝒌_T^2}{(𝒌_T^2+L_i^2(z))^4}},`$ (54)
$`G_{1T}^i(\frac{1}{z},𝒌_T^2)`$ $`=`$ $`a_i{\displaystyle \frac{N_i^2(1z)^3}{16\pi ^3z^4}}{\displaystyle \frac{2M_h(m+\frac{1}{z}M_h)}{(𝒌_T^2+L_i^2(z))^4}},`$ (56)
with the spin factors $`a_s=1`$ and $`a_a=\frac{1}{3}`$, and where we made use of the newly defined functions:

$`l_i^2(x_B)`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{\Lambda }^2(1x_B)+x_BM_i^2x_B(1x_B)M^2,`$ (57)
$`L_i^2(z)`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{\Lambda }^2(1{\displaystyle \frac{1}{z}})+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{z}}M_i^2{\displaystyle \frac{1}{z}}(1{\displaystyle \frac{1}{z}})M_h^2.`$ (58)
The values of the parameters of the model have been determined to be

$`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ $`=`$ $`0.5\text{ GeV},`$ (59)
$`M_s`$ $`=`$ $`0.6\text{ GeV},M_a=0.8\text{ GeV},`$ (60)
$`m`$ $`=`$ $`0.36\text{ Gev}.`$ (61)
The functions depend only weakly on the chosen value of the quark mass $`m`$. The normalization factors $`n_i`$ and $`N_i`$ are fixed by the conditions

$`{\displaystyle dx_B\mathrm{d}^2𝒑_Tf_1^i(x_B,𝒑_T^2)}`$ $`=`$ $`1,`$ (62)
$`{\displaystyle dz\mathrm{d}^2𝒌_Tz\left(z^2D_1^i(\frac{1}{z},𝒌_T^2)\right)}`$ $`=`$ $`1.`$ (63)
Note that for the fragmentation function the normalization condition is put on the first moment.

It is noteworthy to observe that the model intrinsically describes the dependence of distribution and fragmentation functions on partonic transverse momentum. Moreover, this dependence is significantly different from the frequently used Gaussian dependence.

We gave the distribution and fragmentation functions for scalar and axial-vector diquarks. We must now address the problem of defining the hadron state in terms of the quark-diquark content. From a group theory analysis, for a proton, a neutron and a $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ particle the results are :

$`|p`$ $`=`$ $`\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}|u,S+\frac{1}{\sqrt{6}}|u,A\frac{1}{\sqrt{3}}|d,A,`$ (64)
$`|n`$ $`=`$ $`\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}|d,S\frac{1}{\sqrt{6}}|d,A+\frac{1}{\sqrt{3}}|u,A,`$ (65)
$`|\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ $`=`$ $`\frac{1}{\sqrt{12}}|u,S\frac{1}{\sqrt{12}}|d,S\frac{2}{\sqrt{12}}|s,S+\frac{1}{\sqrt{4}}|u,A\frac{1}{\sqrt{4}}|d,A.`$ (66)
Using these results, the probability of finding an up, down or strange quark in one of these hadrons is related to the probability of finding a scalar or axial-vector diquark in the following way:

$$\begin{array}{ccccccc}\hfill f_1^{pu}& =& \frac{3}{2}f_1^s+\frac{1}{2}f_1^a,\hfill & & \hfill f_1^{pd}& =& f_1^a,\hfill \\ \hfill f_1^{nu}& =& f_1^a,\hfill & & \hfill f_1^{nd}& =& \frac{3}{2}f_1^s+\frac{1}{2}f_1^a,\hfill \\ \hfill f_1^{\mathrm{\Lambda }u}& =& \frac{1}{4}f_1^s+\frac{3}{4}f_1^a,\hfill & & \hfill f_1^{\mathrm{\Lambda }d}& =& \frac{1}{4}f_1^s+\frac{3}{4}f_1^a,f_1^{\mathrm{\Lambda }s}=f_1^a.\hfill \end{array}$$
(67)
Overall normalizations ensure the correct number sum rules for valence quarks in the baryons. Analogous formulae hold for all other distribution functions and for the fragmentation functions as well.

Once we have computed the distribution and fragmentation functions for a scalar and axial-vector diquark, we can eventually calculate the argument of the convolutions occurring in the structure functions for a given process. At this stage, the (charge squared weighted) sum over quark flavors is rewritten in a weighted sum over the different diquark species:

$$\underset{q}{}e_q^2f_1^qD_1^q=\underset{i,j=s,a}{}c_{ij}f_1^iD_1^j,$$
(68)
where the coefficients depend on the type of hadrons involved.

For instance, for the following processes:

* $`epe^{}\mathrm{\Lambda }X`$

$$\frac{4}{9}f_1^{pu}D_1^{u\mathrm{\Lambda }}+\frac{1}{9}f_1^{pd}D_1^{d\mathrm{\Lambda }}=\frac{1}{6}f_1^sD_1^s+\frac{1}{2}f_1^sD_1^a+\frac{1}{12}f_1^aD_1^s+\frac{1}{4}f_1^aD_1^a;$$
(69)
* $`epe^{}p^{}X`$

$$\frac{4}{9}f_1^{pu}D_1^{up}+\frac{1}{9}f_1^{pd}D_1^{dp}=f_1^sD_1^s+\frac{1}{3}f_1^sD_1^a+\frac{1}{3}f_1^aD_1^s+\frac{2}{9}f_1^aD_1^a;$$
(70)
* $`ene^{}\mathrm{\Lambda }X`$

$$\frac{4}{9}f_1^{nu}D_1^{u\mathrm{\Lambda }}+\frac{1}{9}f_1^{nd}D_1^{d\mathrm{\Lambda }}=\frac{1}{24}f_1^sD_1^s+\frac{1}{8}f_1^sD_1^a+\frac{1}{8}f_1^aD_1^s+\frac{3}{8}f_1^aD_1^a;$$
(71)
* $`ene^{}pX`$

$$\frac{4}{9}f_1^{nu}D_1^{up}+\frac{1}{9}f_1^{nd}D_1^{dp}=\frac{1}{6}f_1^sD_1^a+\frac{2}{3}f_1^aD_1^s+\frac{5}{18}f_1^aD_1^a.$$
(72)

Analogous formulae apply to other combinations of distribution and fragmentation functions.

In the following section we will concentrate only on the first process. However, using appropriate coefficients $`c_{ij}`$ and appropriate hadron masses one can carry out the calculations for any baryon-to-baryon process.

### B Numerical results for structure functions in $`epe^{}\mathrm{\Lambda }X`$

In this section we present numerical results for structure functions of the process $`epe^{}\mathrm{\Lambda }X`$ obtained using the distribution and fragmentation functions from the spectator model. We concentrate on $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ production, since it is possible to determine its polarization from the kinematics of its decay. We will consider separately different experimental situations with or without polarization of the target and of the produced $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$. In this way the various terms in Eq. 21 and Eq. 35 can be accessed.

1 – Unpolarized proton target and unpolarized produced $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$. We performed the calculation of the structure function $`W_T^{\text{[UU]}}`$ of Eq. (21) using $`f_1`$ from Eq. (46) and $`D_1`$ from Eq. (52), with the coefficients $`c_{ij}`$ as specified in Eq. (69). After integrating over $`k_x`$ and $`k_y`$ by using the $`\delta `$-function we obtain

$`W_T^{\text{[UU]}}(x_B,z,P_h)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{i,j=s,a}{}}c_{ij}\frac{n_i^2N_j^2}{2M(2\pi )^6}(1x_B)^3\left({\displaystyle \frac{1z}{z}}\right)^3{\displaystyle dp_xdp_y}`$ (74)
$`\times {\displaystyle \frac{(m+x_BM)^2+p_x^2+p_y^2}{\left[p_x^2+p_y^2+l_i^2(x)\right]^4}}{\displaystyle \frac{\left(m+\frac{1}{z}M_h\right)^2+\left(p_x\frac{|P_h|}{z}\right)^2+p_y^2}{\left[\left(p_x\frac{|P_h|}{z}\right)^2+p_y^2+L_j^2(z)\right]^4}}.`$
The remaining integration has been carried out making use of an adaptive multi-dimensional integration method. As we remarked before, integrating out $`P_h`$ leads to a deconvolution and, consequently, the transverse momentum integration can be performed separately for the distribution and fragmentation functions as shown in Eq. (42). With the form of the functions given by the spectator model the integrations can be carried out analytically . Comparison of those analytical results with the outcome of a numerical integration has been used as a check of consistency.

The results are displayed in the plots. Fig. 3 shows the structure function $`W_T^{\text{[UU]}}`$ at $`P_h=0`$. Fig. 4 shows the contour-plot of the same function at three different values of $`P_h`$. An interesting feature is that when $`P_h`$ increases, the position of the peak slowly moves to lower values of $`z`$ while there is no change in the $`x`$ position of the peak. In other words, a hadron produced with a higher transverse momentum is more likely to carry a lower fraction of the longitudinal momentum of the original quark. We remark that this behavior is due to the kinematical conditions imposed by momentun conservation.

In Fig. 5 we show the results obtained by integrating the structure function over $`z`$ or $`x_B`$, respectively.

Finally, we can integrate over both $`z`$ and $`x_B`$ at the same time, thereby obtaining the dependence of the structure function $`W_T^{\text{[UU]}}`$ on $`P_h`$ alone (Fig. 6). This dependence is connected with the distribution of transverse momentum of quarks inside the hadron. In principle, comparison with experimental data could be used to discriminate between different assumptions on this distribution.

2 – Longitudinally polarized proton target and unpolarized produced $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$. In this case, we need to calculate the structure function $`W_{}^{}{}_{TT}{}^{\text{[LU]}}`$ of Eq. (35). Using Eq. (48) and Eq. (52) and integrating over $`k_x`$ and $`k_y`$ using the $`\delta `$functions, we obtain the formula

$`W_{}^{}{}_{TT}{}^{\text{[LU]}}(x_B,z,P_h)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{i,j=s,a}{}}c_{ij}a_i\frac{n_i^2N_j^2}{2M(2\pi )^6}(1x_B)^3\left({\displaystyle \frac{1z}{z}}\right)^3{\displaystyle dp_xdp_y}`$ (76)
$`\times {\displaystyle \frac{(m+x_BM)^2p_x^2p_y^2}{\left[p_x^2+p_y^2+l_i^2(x)\right]^4}}{\displaystyle \frac{\left(m+\frac{1}{z}M_h\right)^2+\left(p_x\frac{|P_h|}{z}\right)^2+p_y^2}{\left[\left(p_x\frac{|P_h|}{z}\right)^2+p_y^2+L_j^2(z)\right]^4}}.`$
Fig. 7 shows the structure function $`W_{}^{}{}_{TT}{}^{\text{[LU]}}`$ at $`P_h=0`$. Fig. 8 shows the contour-plot of the same function at three different values of $`P_h`$. As in the case of $`W_T^{\text{[UU]}}`$, for increasing $`P_h`$ the position of the peak moves to lower values of $`z`$.

Integration over $`z`$ or $`x_B`$ produces a behavior similar to the one shown in Fig. 5.

Integrating over both $`z`$ and $`x_B`$ we obtain the dependence of the structure function $`W_{}^{}{}_{TT}{}^{\text{[LU]}}`$ on $`P_h`$ alone (Fig. 9).

3 – Transversely polarized proton target and unpolarized produced $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$. Substituting the results coming from Eq. (50) and Eq. (52) in Eq. (35) and integrating over $`k_x`$ and $`k_y`$ we obtain

$`W_{}^{}{}_{TT}{}^{\text{[TU]}}(x_B,z,P_h)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{i,j=s,a}{}}c_{ij}a_i\frac{n_i^2N_j^2}{2M(2\pi )^6}(1x_B)^3\left({\displaystyle \frac{1z}{z}}\right)^3{\displaystyle dp_xdp_y}`$ (78)
$`\times {\displaystyle \frac{2p_x(m+x_BM)}{\left[p_x^2+p_y^2+l_i^2(x)\right]^4}}{\displaystyle \frac{\left(m+\frac{1}{z}M_h\right)^2+\left(p_x\frac{|P_h|}{z}\right)^2+p_y^2}{\left[\left(p_x\frac{|P_h|}{z}\right)^2+p_y^2+L_j^2(z)\right]^4}}.`$
Fig. 10 shows the structure function $`W_{}^{}{}_{TT}{}^{\text{[TU]}}`$ at $`P_h=0.4`$ GeV. Fig. 11 shows the contour-plot of the same function at three different values of $`P_h`$. Again, as $`P_h`$ increases the position of the peak moves to lower values of $`z`$.

Integrating over both $`z`$ and $`x_B`$ we obtain the dependence of the structure function $`W_{}^{}{}_{TT}{}^{\text{[TU]}}`$ on $`P_h`$ alone (Fig. 12).

4 – Unpolarized proton target and longitudinally polarized produced $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$. Substituting the results coming from Eq. (46) and Eq. (48) in Eq. (35) and integrating over $`k_x`$ and $`k_y`$ we obtain

$`W_{}^{}{}_{TT}{}^{\text{[UL]}}(x_B,z,P_h)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{i,j=s,a}{}}c_{ij}a_j\frac{n_i^2N_j^2}{2M(2\pi )^6}(1x_B)^3\left({\displaystyle \frac{1z}{z}}\right)^3{\displaystyle dp_xdp_y}`$ (80)
$`\times {\displaystyle \frac{(m+x_BM)^2+p_x^2+p_y^2}{\left[p_x^2+p_y^2+l_i^2(x)\right]^4}}{\displaystyle \frac{\left(m+\frac{1}{z}M_h\right)^2\left(p_x\frac{|P_h|}{z}\right)^2p_y^2}{\left[\left(p_x\frac{|P_h|}{z}\right)^2+p_y^2+L_j^2(z)\right]^4}}.`$
Fig. 13 shows the structure function $`W_{}^{}{}_{TT}{}^{\text{[UL]}}`$ at $`P_h=0`$ and at $`P_h=0.5`$ GeV. In this case, the contributions containing the negative $`a_a`$ factor play a larger role than in the previous cases. For this reason, the significance of the contour plots is reduced and we preferred to show 3-D plots of the structure function.

Integrating over both $`z`$ and $`x_B`$ we obtain the dependence of the structure function $`W_{}^{}{}_{TT}{}^{\text{[UL]}}`$ on $`P_h`$ alone (Fig. 14).

5 – Unpolarized proton target and transversely polarized produced $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$. Substituting the results coming from Eq. (46) and Eq. (50) in the fourth term of Eq. (35) and integrating over $`k_x`$ and $`k_y`$ we obtain

$`W_{}^{}{}_{TT}{}^{\text{[UT]}}(x_B,z,P_h)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{i,j=s,a}{}}c_{ij}\frac{n_i^2N_j^2}{2M(2\pi )^6}(1x_B)^3\left({\displaystyle \frac{1z}{z}}\right)^3{\displaystyle dp_xdp_y}`$ (82)
$`\times {\displaystyle \frac{p_x^2+p_y^2+(m+x_BM)^2}{\left[p_x^2+p_y^2+l_i^2(x)\right]^4}}{\displaystyle \frac{2\left(p_x\frac{|P_h|}{z}\right)\left(m+\frac{1}{z}M_h\right)}{\left[\left(p_x\frac{|P_h|}{z}\right)^2+p_y^2+L_j^2(z)\right]^4}}.`$
Fig. 15 shows the structure function $`W_{}^{}{}_{TT}{}^{\text{[UT]}}`$ (we plot $`W_{}^{}{}_{TT}{}^{\text{[UT]}}`$ for display convenience) at $`P_h=0.4`$ GeV and $`P_h=0.8`$ GeV.

Integrating over both $`z`$ and $`x_B`$ we obtain the dependence of the structure function $`W_{}^{}{}_{TT}{}^{\text{[UT]}}`$ on $`P_h`$ alone (Fig. 16).

## IV Conclusions

In this paper the structure functions appearing in the cross section of polarized one-particle inclusive deep-inelastic scattering have been expressed in terms of distribution and fragmentation functions. Suitable kinematic conditions allow to extract selected structure functions and thus to access particular combinations of distribution and fragmentation functions.

We made use of a simple spectator model to calculate the relevant structure functions involved in the cross section. Our analysis can be applied to any process involving a baryonic spin-$`\frac{1}{2}`$ target and an outgoing spin-$`\frac{1}{2}`$ baryon. We chose to focus our attention on the process $`epe^{}\mathrm{\Lambda }X`$. Using our results it is possible to estimate cross-sections for the cases when proton and $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ are both unpolarized or when one of the two is polarized.

An important feature of the analysis we presented is that we calculated the dependence of the cross-sections on the transverse momentum of the outgoing hadron, $`P_h`$. The measurement of this variable gives access to two new contributions to the structure functions. These contributions have never been observed so far, because they vanish if the cross-section is integrated over $`P_h`$. Furthermore, the dependence of the cross-section on $`P_h`$ indirectly tests the distribution of partonic transverse momentum inside the hadron. This distribution is largely unknown at the moment.

The spectator model allows to study $`P_h`$-dependent cross-sections because it produces a well-defined, analytical form of transverse momentum distributions. Since the model qualitatively agrees with totally inclusive measurements, we expect it to give good hints on the $`P_h`$ dependence, as well.

In summary, we are confident that the presented estimate can reproduce the broad features of the structure functions observable in semi-inclusive deep inelastic scattering.

###### Acknowledgements.

This work is supported by the Foundation for Fundamental Research on Matter (FOM) and the Dutch Organization for Scientific Research (NWO) and was partly performed under contract ERB FMRX-CT96-0008 within the frame of the Training and Mobility of Researchers Program of the European Union.


format: text

text:
# Ultra-refraction phenomena in Bragg mirrors

## Abstract

We show numerically for the first time that ultra-refractive phenomena do exist in one-dimensional photonic crystals: we exhibit the main features of ultra-refraction, that is the enlargement and the splitting of an incident beam. We give a very simple explanation of these phenomena in terms of the photonic band structure of these media.

It has recently been shown numerically as well as experimentally that near a band edge, photonic crystals could behave as if they had an effective permittivity close to zero . Such a property induces unexpected behaviors of light usually called ultra-refractive optics. The main phenomena are the splitting or the enlargment of an incident beam, or a negative Goos-Hänschen effect . The common explanation of these facts lie on the study of the photonic dispersion curves. Though appealing, it seems difficult to turn this explanation into a rigorous one as the notion of group velocity in a strongly scattering media seems doubtful apart in the homogenization sense which is not the situation for ultrarefractive optics. In our opinion, these surprising and beautiful phenomena mainly rely on the rapid change in the behavior of the field inside the structure when crossing a band edge. In this article, we provide a rather simple explanation of some of these phenomena (splitting and enlargment of an incident beam), which implies that they should be observed with one dimensional structures (as foreseen by ). Indeed, we show by numerical experiments that it is the case in Bragg mirors (the simplest photonic crystals).

From a theoretical point of view, we consider a periodic one dimensional medium characterized by its relative permittivity $`\epsilon \left(x\right)`$, which is assumed to be real, illuminated by a plane wave. It is well known that the band structure is determined by the monodromy matrix $`𝐓`$ of one layer , that is, the matrix linking the field and its derivative over one period. This matrix is a function of $`\lambda `$ and $`\theta `$. The main quantity is then $`\varphi (\lambda ,\theta )=\frac{1}{2}tr\left(𝐓(\lambda ,\theta )\right)`$. When $`\left|\varphi (\lambda ,\theta )\right|`$ is inferior to $`1`$ then $`(\lambda ,\theta )`$ belong to a conduction band, and when $`\left|\varphi (\lambda ,\theta )\right|`$ is superior to $`1`$ then $`(\lambda ,\theta )`$ belong to a gap. In fig. 1 we give a numerical example for a Bragg Mirror with $`\epsilon _1=1`$, $`\epsilon _2=4`$, $`h_1=h_2=1`$ (the lengths are given in $`\lambda `$ units).

Now let us use a Gaussian beam as the incident field. Let us suppose that the mean angle of the beam is zero (normal incidence) and that its wavelength is very near a band edge. Then two things may happen. Reasoning on the oriented wavelengths axis, if the beam is centered on the left side of the gap (the dispersion diagram is given in the plane $`(\lambda ,\theta )`$, if one uses frequencies instead of wavelengths one has to exchange left and right), the center of the beam belongs to a conduction band and the edges of the beam belong to the gap. Consequently, after propagation in the medium, the transmitted field has a narrowed spectral profile, and therefore the beam is spatially enlarged (figures 1,2). Conservely, if the beam is centered on the right side of the gap, then the center of the beam belongs to the gap, and the edges of the beam belong to the conduction band. Therefore, the transmitted field has two well separated peaks and the beam is splitted in two parts (figures 1,3). The fundamental remark here is that ultra-refractive phenomena are due to the rapid variation of the conduction band with respect to the angle of incidence, in complete contradiction with the habitual requested properties of photonic crystals, which are expected to have a dispersion diagram quite independent of the angle of incidence.

Let us now check numerically the above explanations. We still use the previous Bragg Mirror. The numerical experiments are done with an s-polarized incident field of the form:

$$u^i(x,y)=A\left(\alpha \right)\mathrm{exp}\left(i\alpha xi\beta \left(\alpha \right)y\right)𝑑\alpha $$
(1)
with $`\alpha =k\mathrm{sin}\theta ,\alpha =k\mathrm{sin}\theta _0,\beta \left(\alpha \right)=\sqrt{k^2\alpha ^2}`$ and $`k=2\pi /\lambda `$, $`\left|A\left(\alpha \right)\right|={\displaystyle \frac{W}{2\sqrt{\pi }}}\mathrm{exp}\left({\displaystyle \frac{\left(\alpha \alpha _0\right)^2W^2}{4}}\right)`$. In all numerical experiments $`W=0.5`$, the variable $`\theta _0`$ is the mean angle of incidence.

In the first numerical experiment, we set $`\lambda =2.7`$ and $`\theta _0=0^{}`$. We have plotted in figure (4a) the transmission coefficient as well as the spectral profile of the transmitted beam. Obviously, this profile is much narrower than the incident one. The map of the electric field is given in figure (4b). The incident field is coming from below. As expected, we observe a strong enlargement of the transmitted beam.

For the second numerical experiment, we use $`\lambda =3`$ and $`\theta _0=0^{}`$. This time, the center of the beam belong to the gap. We have plotted in figure (5a) the transmission coefficient as well as the spectral profile of the incident and transmitted fields. It appears that there are two isolated peaks, and therefore the transmitted field is splitted spatially into two parts, as shown in figure (5b). At that point it is easily seen that by switching the incident beam it is possible to keep only one transmitted beam. This is done in the last experiment, where we set $`\theta _0=10^{}`$ . As it can been seen on fig 6 (a), only the right part of the beam is significantly transmitted, and thus there is only one transmitted beam (fig. 6 (b)). If Snell-Descartes law is directly applied to this situation, then it seems that the medium has an optical index that is inferior to $`1`$.

As a conclusion, we have shown both theoretically and numerically that ultra-refractive phenomena do happen in one-dimensional Bragg mirrors, or more generally in one dimensional photonic crystals. They may be well explained by means of the intersection of the support of the incident beam with the gaps and the conduction bands. It must also be noted that, though one dimensional photonic crystals exhibit ultra-refractive properties, bidimensional or three dimensional ones should show a better efficiency due their richer band diagrams. Nevertheless, doping 1-D structure or using quasi-crystals may enable a fair control over the width of the gaps and conduction bands, thus leading to the design of practical devices. Finally, it should also be noted that such a surprising phenomenon as a negative Goos-Hänchen effect does not seem to be possible in 1D structures.

Figure captions:

figure 1: Dispersion diagram of a Bragg mirror, with $`\epsilon _1=1,\epsilon _2=4,h_1=1,h_2=1`$. The double arrowed lines indicate the width of the Gaussian beams.

figure 2: Sketch of the behavior of the beam when spatially enlarged.

figure 3: Sketch of the behavior of the beam when splitted.

figure 4: (a) Transmission through the Bragg mirror vs. angle of incidence (dotted line), spectral amplitude of the incident beam (solid line) and spectral amplitude of the transmitted beam (thick line) ($`\lambda =2.7,\theta _0=0`$).

(b) Map of the intensity of the electric field above and below the Bragg mirror in the case of figure 2 (above: transmitted field, below: incident field).

figure 5: (a) same as fig. 4 (a) in the case of figure 3 ($`\lambda =3,\theta _0=0^{}`$).

(b) Map of the intensity of the electric field above and below the Bragg mirror in the case of figure 3 (above: transmitted field, below: incident field).

figure 6: (a) same as fig. 4 (a) in the case of figure 3.($`\lambda =3,\theta _0=10^{}`$).

(b) Map of the intensity of the electric field above and below the Bragg mirror in the case of figure 3 (above: transmitted field, below: incident field).


text:
# Dimension 𝑛 Representations of the Braid Group on 𝑛 Strings

## 1. Introduction

Let $`B_n`$ be the braid group on $`n`$ strings. In his paper  Ed Formanek classified all irreducible representations of $`B_n`$ of dimension at most $`(n1).`$ Since then there were some attempts to classify irreducible representations of $`B_n`$ of dimension $`n`$. In particular the classification is known for very small $`n`$. Case $`n=3`$ was done by Ed Formanek (, Theorem 24). Woo Lee has classified the four-dimensional irreducible representations of $`B_4`$ ().

In this paper we solve this problem completely for $`n9`$. Before stating our main classification theorem let us describe the following representation of $`B_n`$ of dimension $`n`$.

###### Definition 1.

The standard representation is the representation

$$\tau _n:B_nGL_n([t^{\pm 1}]$$

defined by

$$\rho (\sigma _i)=\left(\begin{array}{ccccc}I_{i1}& & & & \\ & 0& t& & \\ & 1& 0& & \\ & & & I_{n1i}& \end{array}\right),$$

for $`i=1,2,\mathrm{},n1,`$ where $`I_k`$ is the $`k\times k`$ identity matrix.

We call the above representation standard because of its simplicity. Surprisingly, it does not seem to be well-known. In fact it looks like it was first discovered only in 1996 by Dian-Min Tong, Shan-De Yang and Zhong-Qi Ma ( , Equation (19)).

###### Theorem 1.

Suppose that $`\rho :B_nGL_n()`$ is an irreducible representation of $`B_n`$ of dimension $`n9.`$ Then it is a tensor product of a one-dimensional representation and a specialization for $`u0,1`$ of the standard representation.

To explain the ideas of the proof, we need the following definition.

###### Definition 2.

Suppose $`\rho `$ is a representation of the Artin braid group $`B_n.`$ The corank of $`\rho `$ is the rank of $`\rho (\sigma _i),`$ where $`\sigma _i`$ are the standard generators of $`B_n.`$ (This makes sense because all $`\sigma _i`$ are conjugate.)

If one looks at the proof of the classification theorem of Formanek in , it can be separated into two parts. The first is to classify all irreducible representations of braid groups of corank $`1.`$ The second is to prove that apart from a few exceptions, the irreducible representations of braid groups $`B_n`$ of dimension at most $`(n1)`$ can be obtained as a tensor product of a one-dimensional representation and an irreducible representation of corank $`1.`$

Our proof follows a similar strategy. The first part of it, the classification of irreducible representations of corank $`2`$ was carried out in . In this paper we complete the proof of Theorem 1 by proving that for $`n9`$ every irreducible representation of $`B_n`$ of dimension $`n`$ is the tensor product of a one-dimensional representation and a representation of corank $`2`$.

Acknowledgments: The author wishes to express her deep gratitude to Ed Formanek for numerous helpful discussions and support. His remarks simplified considerably the proof of the main theorem. In particular, Lemma 4 is due to him.

## 2. Proof of Theorem 1

We proved in , Theorem 5.5 and Corollary 5.6 that for $`n7`$ every irreducible complex representation of $`B_n`$ of corank $`2`$ is a specialization of the standard representation (see Definition 1.) So to complete the proof of Theorem 1 it is enough to show that for $`n9`$ every irreducible representation of $`B_n`$ of dimension $`n`$ is the tensor product of a one-dimensional representation of corank $`2`$. This will be done in Theorem 5. Before that we need some preparatory results. The key of the proof is the following theorem, which is similar to Theorem 16 of .

###### Theorem 2.

Suppose that $`\rho :B_{n+1}GL_{n+1}()`$ is an irreducible representation of $`B_{n+1}`$ of dimension $`n+1`$ ($`n4`$). Suppose that the restriction of $`\rho ,`$ $`\rho |B_{n1}\times <\sigma _n>,`$ stabilizes one-dimensional subspace $`v`$ of $`^{n+1}.`$

Then $`rank(\rho (\sigma _1)yI)=2`$ for some $`y^{}.`$

Proof. For notational simplicity we will write $`\sigma `$ instead of $`\rho (\sigma )`$ for $`\sigma B_n.`$

By hypothesis,

$$\rho |B_{n1}\times <\sigma _n>:vv$$

is a one-dimensional representation of $`B_{n1}\times B_2,`$ so there exist $`x,y^{}`$ such that

$$\sigma _1v=\sigma _2v=\mathrm{}=\sigma _{n2}v=yv,\sigma _nv=xv$$

Consider $`\theta =\theta _{n+1}=\sigma _1\sigma _2\mathrm{}\sigma _n,`$ $`\sigma _0=\theta \sigma _n\theta ^1,`$

$$v_n=v,v_{n+1}=\theta v,v_1=\theta ^2v,\mathrm{},v_{n1}=\theta ^nv.$$

Conjugation by $`\theta `$ permutes $`\sigma _1,\mathrm{},\sigma _n,\sigma _0`$ cyclically.

Because $`\rho `$ is an irreducible representation and $`\theta ^{n+1}`$ is central in $`B_{n+1},`$ $`\rho (\theta ^{n+1})=dI`$ for some $`d^{}.`$ Thus, the left action of $`\theta `$ permutes $`v_1,v_2,\mathrm{},v_{n+1}`$ cyclically.

We have:

$$\sigma _iv_i=xv_i,$$

$$\sigma _iv_{i+j}=yv_{i+j}$$

for

$$i=1,\mathrm{},n+1,j=2,\mathrm{},n1,$$

where indices are taken modulo $`n+1.`$

The following table summarizes the above calculations:

|  |  | $`v_1`$ | $`v_2`$ | $`v_3`$ | $`\mathrm{}`$ | $`v_{n1}`$ | $`v_n`$ | $`v_{n+1}`$ |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
|  | $`\sigma _1`$ | $`xv_1`$ |  | $`yv_3`$ | $`\mathrm{}`$ | $`yv_{n1}`$ | $`yv_n`$ |  |
|  | $`\sigma _2`$ |  | $`xv_2`$ |  | $`\mathrm{}`$ | $`yv_{n1}`$ | $`yv_n`$ | $`yv_{n+1}`$ |
|  | $`\sigma _3`$ | $`yv_1`$ |  | $`xv_3`$ | $`\mathrm{}`$ | $`yv_{n1}`$ | $`yv_n`$ | $`yv_{n+1}`$ |
|  | $`\mathrm{}`$ | $`\mathrm{}`$ | $`\mathrm{}`$ | $`\mathrm{}`$ | $`\mathrm{}`$ | $`\mathrm{}`$ | $`\mathrm{}`$ | $`\mathrm{}`$ |
|  | $`\sigma _{n1}`$ | $`yv_1`$ | $`yv_2`$ | $`yv_3`$ | $`\mathrm{}`$ | $`xv_{n1}`$ |  | $`yv_{n+1}`$ |
|  | $`\sigma _n`$ | $`yv_1`$ | $`yv_2`$ | $`yv_3`$ | $`\mathrm{}`$ |  | $`xv_n`$ |  |
|  | $`\sigma _0`$ | $`yv_1`$ | $`yv_2`$ | $`yv_3`$ | $`\mathrm{}`$ | $`yv_{n1}`$ |  | $`xv_{n+1}`$ |

Suppose that $`v_1,\mathrm{},v_{n+1}`$ are linearly dependent. Consider

$$a_1v_1+a_2v_2+\mathrm{}+a_tv_t=a_1v_1+a_2\theta v_1+\mathrm{}+a_t\theta ^{t1}v_1=0,$$

a linear dependence relationship with minimal $`t.`$

In the equation above, $`a_10,`$ since $`\theta `$ is invertible, and $`a_t0`$ by the minimality of $`t.`$

We claim that $`tn.`$ Indeed, suppose that $`tn1.`$ Then $`v_{n1}`$ is a linear combination of $`v_1,\mathrm{},v_{n2},`$ which are eigenvectors for $`\sigma _n`$ with $`\sigma _nv_i=yv_i,i=1,\mathrm{},n2.`$ So, $`\sigma _nv_{n1}=yv_{n1}.`$ Applying $`\theta ^3`$ implies that $`\sigma _2v_1=yv_1,`$ which means that $`v_1`$ is $`B_{n+1}`$invariant, which contradicts the irreducibility of $`\rho .`$ So, $`tn.`$

Thus, $`v_1,\mathrm{},v_{n1}`$ are linearly independent.

Assume that $`rank(\sigma _1yI)>2.`$ Then, as

$$dim(Ker(\sigma _1yI))+rank(\sigma _1yI)=n+1,$$

$`dim(Ker(\sigma _1yI))n2.`$

Note that $`v_3,\mathrm{},v_n`$ are $`n2`$ linearly independent elements of $`L=Ker(\sigma _1yI).`$ So, $`dim(Ker(\sigma _1yI))=n2,`$ and $`L=span\{v_3,\mathrm{},v_n\}.`$

Since vectors $`\{v_1,\mathrm{},v_{n1}\}`$ are linearly independent, $`\{v_2,\mathrm{},v_n\}`$ and $`\{v_3,\mathrm{},v_{n+1}\}`$ are also linearly independent. Therefore $`v_2L,`$ and $`v_{n+1}L.`$

The action of $`\theta `$ implies that for $`i=1,\mathrm{},n+1`$

$$Ker(\sigma _iyI)=span\{v_{i+2},\mathrm{},v_{i2}\},$$

$`v_{i1}L,`$ and $`v_{i+1}L,`$ where indices are taken modulo $`n+1.`$

$`\sigma _1`$ commutes with $`\sigma _n,`$ and $`n4,`$ so

$$(\sigma _nyI)\sigma _1v_2=\sigma _1(\sigma _nyI)v_2=0.$$

Thus, $`\sigma _1v_2Ker(\sigma _nyI),`$ so

$$\sigma _1v_2=b_1v_1+b_2v_2+\mathrm{}+b_sv_s,$$

where $`1sn2`$ and $`b_s0.`$

We claim that $`s2.`$ Indeed, if $`s3,`$ then

$$0=\sigma _1(\sigma _{s+1}yI)v_2=(\sigma _{s+1}yI)\sigma _1v_2=$$

$$=(\sigma _{s+1}yI)(b_1v_1+b_2v_2+\mathrm{}+b_sv_s)=(\sigma _{s+1}yI)b_sv_s.$$

This contradicts the fact that $`v_sKer(\sigma _{s+1}yI).`$

Thus,

$$\sigma _1v_2=b_1v_1+b_2v_2,b_1,b_2.$$

By a symmetric argument which reverses the roles of $`\sigma _1`$ and $`\sigma _n,`$ and starts with the equation

$$(\sigma _1yI)\sigma _nv_{n1}=\sigma _n(\sigma _1yI)v_{n1}=0,$$

we obtain

$$\sigma _nv_{n1}=c_1v_{n1}+c_2v_n,c_1,c_2.$$

Using the action of $`\theta ,`$ we get the following table:

|  |  | $`v_1`$ | $`v_2`$ | $`\mathrm{}`$ | $`v_n`$ | $`v_{n+1}`$ |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
|  | $`\sigma _1`$ | $`xv_1`$ | $`b_1v_1+b_2v_2`$ | $`\mathrm{}`$ | $`yv_n`$ | $`c_1v_{n+1}+c_2v_1`$ |
|  | $`\sigma _2`$ | $`c_1v_1+c_2v_2`$ | $`xv_2`$ | $`\mathrm{}`$ | $`yv_n`$ | $`yv_{n+1}`$ |
|  | $`\sigma _3`$ | $`yv_1`$ | $`c_1v_2+c_2v_3`$ | $`\mathrm{}`$ | $`yv_n`$ | $`yv_{n+1}`$ |
|  | $`\mathrm{}`$ | $`\mathrm{}`$ | $`\mathrm{}`$ | $`\mathrm{}`$ | $`\mathrm{}`$ | $`\mathrm{}`$ |
|  | $`\sigma _{n1}`$ | $`yv_1`$ | $`yv_2`$ | $`\mathrm{}`$ | $`b_1v_{n1}+b_2v_n`$ | $`yv_{n+1}`$ |
|  | $`\sigma _n`$ | $`yv_1`$ | $`yv_2`$ | $`\mathrm{}`$ | $`xv_n`$ | $`b_1v_n+b_2v_{n+1}`$ |

$`Span\{v_1,v_2,\mathrm{},v_{n+1}\}`$ is $`B_{n+1}`$invariant. Thus, if $`\{v_1,v_2,\mathrm{},v_{n+1}\}`$ are linearly dependent, then $`\rho `$ is reducible. So,$`\{v_1,v_2,\mathrm{},v_{n+1}\}`$ are linearly independent, and they form a basis for $`^{n+1}.`$

In this basis:

$$\sigma _1=\left(\begin{array}{cccccc}x& b_1& & & & c_2\\ 0& b_2& & & & \\ & & y& & & \\ & & & \mathrm{}& & \\ & & & & y& \\ & & & & & c_1\end{array}\right),\sigma _3=\left(\begin{array}{ccccccc}y& & & & & & \\ & c_1& & & & & \\ & c_2& x& b_1& & & \\ & & & b_2& & & \\ & & & & y& & \\ & & & & & \mathrm{}& \\ & & & & & & y\end{array}\right).$$

Using the $`(3,2)`$entry of the matrix $`\sigma _1\sigma _3=\sigma _3\sigma _1,`$ we have

$$b_2c_2=yc_2.$$

If $`c_2=0,`$ then $`v_1`$ is invariant under $`B_{n+1},`$ which contradicts the irreducibility of $`\rho .`$ So, $`c_20.`$ Thus, $`b_2=y.`$ Then $`rank(\sigma _1yI)2,`$ a contradiction.

So, $`rank(\sigma _1yI)2.`$ But by , Theorem 10, the case $`rank(\sigma _1yI)=1`$ is impossible. Thus, $`rank(\sigma _1yI)=2.`$

The following argument is due to E. Formanek. He also used it in , Lemma 17 and Corollary 18. My original argument was much longer.

The next Lemma 3 is a corollary of Theorem 23 of , which classifies the irreducible representations of $`B_n`$ of dimension at most $`n1.`$

###### Lemma 3.

If $`\rho :B_nGL_r()`$ is irreducible and $`rn3,`$ then $`\rho `$ is one-dimensional.

###### Lemma 4.

Let $`\rho :B_nGL_r()`$ be a representation, where $`n6.`$ Suppose that $`\lambda `$ is an eigenvalue of $`\rho (\sigma _{n1}).`$ Suppose that the largest Jordan block corresponding to $`\lambda `$ has size $`s`$ and multiplicity $`d.`$

If $`dn5,`$ then $`\rho |B_{n2}\times <\sigma _{n1}>`$ has a one-dimensional invariant subspace.

Proof. Let $`f(t)`$ be the minimal polynomial of $`\rho (\sigma _{n1}).`$ Set $`m(t)=f(t)/(t\lambda ).`$ Let $`V`$ be the image of $`^r`$ under $`m(\rho (\sigma _{n1})).`$ Then $`V`$ is invariant under $`\rho |B_{n2}\times <\sigma _{n1}>,`$ and $`dimV=d.`$ If $`dn5,`$ then by Lemma 3, all composition factors of

$$\rho |B_{n2}\times <\sigma _{n1}>:VV$$

are one-dimensional.

###### Theorem 5.

For $`n9,`$ every $`n`$dimensional complex irreducible representation $`\rho `$ of the braid group $`B_n`$ is equivalent to a tensor product of a one-dimensional representation $`\chi (y),`$ $`y^{},`$ and an $`n`$-dimensional representation of corank $`2.`$

Proof. Assume not. Then by Theorem 2 and Lemma 4, the largest Jordan block corresponding to every eigenvalue of $`\rho (\sigma _{n1})`$ has multiplicity $`n4.`$

If $`\rho (\sigma _{n1})`$ has two or more eigenvalues, we get

$$(n4)+(n4)n,$$

a contradiction, since $`n9.`$ Similarly, if some eigenvalue has the corresponding largest Jordan block of size $`s2,`$ we get a contradiction

$$2(n4)n.$$

Thus, $`\rho (\sigma _{n1})`$ has only one eigenvalue $`\lambda `$ and the Jordan canonical form of $`\rho (\sigma _{n1})`$ consists of $`1\times 1`$ elementary Jordan blocks. But then $`\rho (\sigma _{n1})=\lambda I,`$ which contradicts the irreducibility of $`\rho .`$

This completes the proof of the theorem, and thus the proof of Theorem 1.


text:
# Bimodal production of Be and B in the early Galaxy

## 1 Introduction

In the last decade, the high sensitivity of the KECK telescope and the HST has allowed numerous observations of the Be and B abundances in halo stars having very low metallicities, down to $`[\mathrm{Fe}/\mathrm{H}]=3`$, i.e. $`\mathrm{Fe}/\mathrm{H}10^3(\mathrm{Fe}/\mathrm{H})_{}`$ (e.g. Molaro, et al., 1997; Duncan, et al., 1997; Garcia-Lopez, et al., 1998). These observations show a clear proportionality between the Be, B and Fe abundances. Considering that the light elements are secondary nuclei synthesized by spallation from C and O nuclei (Reeves, et al., 1970), it had been expected instead that their abundance would increase as the square of the metallicity (Vangioni-Flam, et al., 1990). This *secondary behavior* follows directly from the standard Galactic Cosmic Ray Nucleosynthesis (GCRN) scenario (Meneguzzi, et al., 1971), in which most of the Be and B are produced by energetic protons and $`\alpha `$ particles interacting with C and O nuclei accumulated in the ISM (direct spallation).

The most natural way to account for the unexpected constancy of the Be/Fe and B/Fe ratios is to assume that Be and B nuclei are mainly produced by *reverse spallation*, i.e. by energetic C and O nuclei accelerated shortly after their release into the interstellar medium (ISM), and interacting with ambient H and He nuclei (Duncan, et al., 1992; Cassé, et al., 1995). This makes the production rates independent of the ambient metallicity, and the amount of light elements (L elements) in the Galaxy therefore increases jointly with the most abundant metals (M elements), namely C, O and Fe. This behavior is refered to as *primary*, and has been shown to follow naturally from the assumption that most of the supernova (SN) explosions occur in OB associations. This is the heart of the so-called superbubble models, whose main lines we recall in Sect. 2.

Some recent observations have suggested that \[O/Fe\] continues to decrease at the lowest metallicities, rather than reaching a ”plateau” value which is the same for all metal-poor stars. These observations are still controversial (Fulbright & Kraft, 1999), although they could be accounted for by allowing for different ‘mixing times’ for the freshly ejected Fe and O nuclei in the ISM (Ramaty, et al., 1999). They have raised the question whether a primary process for Be and B production in the early Galaxy is still needed (Fields & Olive, 1999). According to both energetics considerations (Ramaty, et al., 1999; Parizot & Drury, 2000) and a detailed analysis of the available data (Fields, et al., 2000), it is now widely agreed that the answer is yes, at least at a metallicity lower than a so-called transition metallicity, $`Z_\mathrm{t}`$, say for $`\mathrm{log}(Z_\mathrm{t}/Z_{})[\mathrm{O}/\mathrm{H}]_\mathrm{t}1.5`$. In this paper, we concentrate on the very early Galaxy, when the primary behavior dominates, and discuss the implications of the superbubble model for the distribution of the (light elements)/(metals) ratios (namely Be/O and B/O, or L/M for short) in very metal-poor stars.

## 2 The superbubble models

In the very early Galaxy, the interaction of energetic particles (EPs) having the ISM composition would produce very little Be and B, because the C and O nuclei are so rare. Simple energetics considerations thus indicate that Be and B can be significantly produced only if the EPs have a composition richer in C and O than the global ISM. This is the reason why the only viable models proposed so far involve the acceleration of C- and O-rich material inside a superbubble (Higdon, et al., 1998; Parizot & Drury, 1999c,2000, Bykov, 1999; Ramaty et al., 1999; Bykov., et al., 2000). Indeed, repeated SNe occurring in an OB association are known to generate a superbubble (SB) with a typical radius of order 300 pc, filled with hot, tenuous gas, and composed of the metal-rich ejecta of the SNe having already exploded, possibly diluted by the swept-up ambient material (of essentially zero metallicity in the early Galaxy).

As discussed in detail in Parizot & Drury (1999c), the SB models for Be and B Galactic evolution are based on the following sequence of events: 1) CNO nuclei are ejected by SNe inside the superbubble; 2) the CNO nuclei are mixed with some ambient, metal-poor material; 3) the resulting material (including CNO) is accelerated; 4) LiBeB is produced by spallation through the interaction of these ‘superbubble energetic particles’ (SBEPs) with the metal-poor material in the supershell and at the surface of the adjacent molecular cloud; 5) the LiBeB produced is mixed with the CNO ejected by the SNe, which leads to a unique value of the L/M ratios throughout the superbubble (and part of the supershell); 6) new stars form by condensation of this gas, after possible dilution by ambient, metal-poor gas (from the supershell or the adjacent molecular cloud. All these new stars then have the same L/M ratios, but possibly different overall metallicity.

Apart from this common ‘astrophysical background’, the models proposed differ in some of their assumptions, notably relating to the composition and spectrum of the metal-rich EPs. Ramaty et al. note that the current composition and spectrum of the cosmic rays (CRs) provide a Be production efficiency sufficient to explain the high L/M ratios observed in halo stars. This is reminiscent of the original result of Meneguzzi et al. (1971), which is the heart of the GCRN scenario for light element production (Vangioni-Flam, et al., 1990; Fields & Olive, 1999): multiplying the light element production rates from GCRs by the age of the Galaxy, one obtains approximately the total amount of Be and B present today in the Galaxy. However, while the GCRN scenario assumes that the CR composition follows that of the ISM (i.e. is richer and richer in C and O) and therefore does not reproduce the primary behavior of Be and B in the early Galaxy, Ramaty et al. assume that the CR composition does not change during the whole Galactic evolution. This is indeed expected if the CRs are made of SN ejecta accelerated inside a superbubble, by the shock of subsequent SNe. Their composition is then almost independent of the ISM metallicity, provided that the SN ejecta are not well mixed with the ambient matter before the acceleration occurs.

In our model (Parizot & Drury, 1999c), we argue that an acceleration mechanism different from the diffusive shock acceleration could occur inside SBs, because of the specific physical conditions prevailing there (hot, tenuous gas, strong magnetic turbulence, multiple weak shocks…). Such a mechanism has been described by Bykov (1995,1999) and leads to a different energy spectrum, which we refer to as the ‘SB spectrum’, and which is flatter than the cosmic-ray source spectrum (CRS) at low energy, say below a few hundreds of MeV/n (for a discussion, see Parizot & Drury, 2000). The actual shape of the spectrum above this ‘break’ (whether a steep power-law or the standard CRS shape in $`p^2`$) is irrelevant here, since it does not affect the Be and B production efficiency. We adopt the following shape for the SB spectrum: $`Q(E)E^1`$ up to $`E_{\mathrm{break}}=500`$ MeV/n, and $`Q(E)E^2`$ above.

As can be seen from Fig. 1, this spectrum makes the light element production more efficient than the standard CRS spectrum, so that the same amount of Be and B can be produced by less metal-rich EPs. In particular, the observed L/M ratios in halo stars can still be accounted for if one allows for a perfect mixing of the SN ejecta with the metal-free material swept-up and evaporated off the supershell, before the acceleration occurs (Parizot & Drury, 1999c,2000). This is suggested by the comparison between the mixing time inside a superbubble ($`10^6`$ yr; see Parizot & Drury 1999c) and the typical age of a superbubble ($`\mathrm{3\hspace{0.17em}10}^7`$ yr). In the following, we analyse the common and distinctive implications of the above models for the distribution of the L/M ratios in halo stars.

## 3 Intrinsic scatter in the L/M ratios

As recalled above, the constancy of the L/M ratios in the framework of SB models relies on the mixing of the primary SN ejecta with the secondary light elements produced by the SBEPs, before the formation of a new generation of stars. In practice, however, such a mixing cannot be perfect and the value of the local L/M ratio is expected to vary from one place to another. In addition, the formation of new stars can occur before all the massive stars explode and/or the induced LiBeB production occurs. As a result, stars with somewhat different L/M ratios should form from a given superbubble, and this should be observed as a scatter in the Be and B data. This is a common prediction of any SB model. However, quantitatively, the amplitude of the scatter depends on the mixing of the gas inside the SB, and of the SB gas with the ambient supershell. Therefore, a model which assumes that the SN ejecta are well mixed with the ISM evaporated inside the SB (Parizot & Drury) predicts a smaller dispersion than a model in which the SBEPs are almost pure ejecta (Ramaty et al.), not diluted with ambient gas. The exact distribution of the L/M ratios expected in the framework ot these two models is not calculated in this paper, because it depends on the details of the gas dynamics inside the SB and the surrounding shell, as well as on the star formation dynamics. Instead, we argue that the accumulation of Be, B and O data could optimistically provide an interesting way to constrain the models, through the statistical description of the scatter in the elemental ratios.

In fact, one might already conclude from the very existence of a well defined correlation between Be and O (or B and O) that the secondary light elements must be quite well mixed with the primary ejecta (CNO) before new stars form. This is an argument in favour of our model, because a good mixing between the CNO inside the SB and the LiBeB produced in the SB shell first requires a good mixing of the gas inside the SB itself. However, stronger conclusions cannot be drawn until more data are available and the error bars become small enough to allow for a direct measure of the scatter in the L/M ratios. It is worth noting also that a larger dispersion should be found for Be than for B, since part of the boron is expected to be produced along with C and O in the course of SN explosions (by neutrino-spallation; Woosley, et al., 1990), and thus be ‘ready-mixed’ inside the SBs.

The above source of scatter in the L/M ratios is inherent in the SB models. It results from the fact that the light elements are produced in a different place from CNO, namely in the shell rather than inside the SB, where the gas in well mixed. In the following section, we discuss another source of dispersion in the L/M ratios of low-metallicity stars, resulting from the fact that SBs do not cover the whole volume of the Galaxy and therefore an other Be and B production mechanism dominates in the regions distant from SBs.

## 4 Bi-modal LiBeB production

The vast majority of spallogenic Li, Be and B nuclei are produced by particles of relatively low-energy, which are just the most numerous. Now since only the SBEPs of highest energy can diffuse away from superbubbles, through the dense shell, without losing their energy through coulombian losses, the LiBeB production induced by the SBEPs outside the superbubbles is very small. Any isolated supernova exploding in the ‘unperturbed’ ISM (i.e. far from SBs) then enriches the ambient gas with freshly synthesized C and O without being accompanied by an equivallent production of LiBeB. The gas around such a SN can thus show very low L/M ratios, unless another mechanism produces LiBeB in the same region. Several processes can be invoked for that purpose. First, the standard GCRN: the shocks created by isolated SNe accelerate CRs from the unperturbed ISM (mostly protons and $`\alpha `$-particles) which then interact with the ambient CNO. The ISM abundance of CNO being very low in the early Galaxy, the resulting LiBeB production efficiency is much smaller than in SBs. The corresponding L/M production ratios are represented in Fig. 2: they increase linearly with metallicity, as expected for GCRN.

If this were the only production mechanism of light elements in the unperturbed ISM, one should expect to find extremely low L/M ratios at very low Z. However, we have shown in Parizot & Drury (1999a,b) that most of the metal-free CRs accelerated at the shock of an isolated SN are actually confined inside the supernova remnant (SNR) during the Sedov-like phase, and interact there with freshly ejected C and O nuclei to produce significant amounts of Be and B. This means that isolated SNe also produce LiBeB locally, where it is easily mixed with the fresh CNO. We evaluated the production efficiency for this mechanism to be about one order of magnitude lower than in superbubbles. The resulting L/M ratios are then about 10 to 30 times below the most common values (obtained with the SB model), and should be considered as a lower limit for L/M ratios in halo stars (provided no depletion occurs after star formation, as can be checked from the Li abundance). This is represented by the lower horizontal line in Fig. 2.

At very low metallicity, we thus predict a bimodal production of Be and B, with SBEPs leading to a high efficiency mechanism (any of the SB models) and CRs accelerated at the shock of isolated SNe leading to a low efficiency mechanism (SNR model, Parizot & Drury, 1999a,b). This results in a bimodal distribution of the L/M ratios, as schematically shown in Fig. 3 (left). Note that the relative weight of the two ‘modes’ depends on the fraction of stars exploding in OB associations, and the fraction of stars forming far from SBs. At higher metallicity, when the Be and B production by GCRN exceeds that of the SNR model, the distance between the peaks gets smaller, and it is hard to distinguish between bimodality and the scatter described in the previous section. This is shown in Fig. 3 (right).

The ideal picture described above would be correct if there were no mixing between the gas processed inside SBs (or their shells) and the general ISM. In practice, this is only true during the first few $`10^8`$ years of Galactic chemical evolution, when the Galaxy is still largely inhomogeneous. Later on, gas with high L/M ratios will ‘pollute’ the gas with low L/M ratios, leading to a broad L/M distribution, rather than two distinct peaks. Therefore, data at very low-metallicity (say at $`\mathrm{O}/\mathrm{H}10^3(\mathrm{O}/\mathrm{H})_{}`$) are needed to fully test the model. Most importantly, since the Li abundance in the early Galaxy is dominated by the primordial 7Li, and thus unaffected by spallative processes, only Be and B should be underabundant in the low L/M stars. The latter should thus show normal Li abundance, and underabundant Be and B. Interestingly enough, Primas et al. (1998) reported such a behavior for the population II star HD 160617, with a deficiency of $`0.5`$ dex in B, at \[Fe/H\] $`1.8`$. As recalled by the authors, no stellar depletion process can be responsible for the low B abundance observed, as any such process would deplete Li much more than Be, because of its lower nuclear destruction temperature.

We also wish to draw attention on the recent report by Boesgaard et al. (1999c) on two pairs of stars, (HD 84927, BD +20 3603) and (HD 94028, HD 219617), having the same stellar parameters (which limit the risk of systematic errors in the derivation of the elemental abundances) but Be abundances differing by as much as 0.3 and 0.6 dex, respectively, at metallicities around \[Fe/H\] $`2.1`$ and $`1.5`$ (or \[O/H\] $`1.4`$ and $`0.85`$). This amounts to “depletion” factors of respectively 2 and 4. It is still not clear whether these differences are due to variations in the Be production efficiency or to poor mixing of the SN ejecta with the gas containing the secondary elements produced by spallation (cf. Sect.3). Additional observations at lower metallicity should allow us to draw more compelling conclusions in the next few years.

## 5 Conclusion

We have shown that the SB models predict a scatter in the L/M ratios observed in halo stars. In the next few years, the statistical analysis of this scatter (measured thanks to smaller error bars) should provide information about the SB dynamics and the star formation mechanism around SBs. The accumulation of data should allow us to distinguish between the two current SB models (good or poor mixing of the gas inside and around SBs).

The models also predict a ‘bi-modal’ production of Be and B in the early Galaxy, with collective SNe giving rise to a high-efficiency mechanism providing the observed L/M ratios (SB model), and isolated SNe giving rise to a low-efficiency mechanism and L/M ratios 10 to 30 times lower (SNR model). Both processes are local, respectively inside superbubbles (or their shells) and inside SNRs, and independent of the ambient ISM metallicity, as required by the observed or inferred constancy of the L/M ratios at very-low metallicity. In addition to these processes, the standard GCRN is expected to occur on the Galactic scale, but at a lower rate until the ISM metallicity reaches about 3 to 10% of the solar metallicity. In any case, if two populations of stars can be identified with respectively high and low L/M ratios, the determination of their relative weight will give information about the statistics of SN explosions in OB associations.

We also predict that Be will be found more deficient than B in the so-called B-depleted stars, of which HD 160617 could only be a first example. On the other hand, if low-metallicity stars can be observed with both strongly deficient Be *and* B, with approximately the same apparent “depletion”, this would imply that the primary component, i.e. the $`\nu `$-process, is not dominant for B, and that we have to find an other process to account for the observed 11B/10B ratio. This would put a strong constraint on light element production, probably requiring the existence of very abundant low-energy ‘cosmic-rays’ ($`E1030`$ MeV/n), powered by an energy source still to be determined.

###### Acknowledgements.

This work was supported by the TMR programme of the European Union under contract FMRX-CT98-0168.


text:
# Structures and propagation in globally coupled systems with time delays

## I Introduction

Standard models for studying collective complex behavior in natural systems consist typically of ensembles of interacting dynamical elements . Such kind of models has proven to be extremely versatile in the mathematical description, both analytical and numerical, of a wide variety of phenomena within the scopes of physics, biology, and other branches of science . According to the range of the involved interactions, these models can be divided into two well distinct classes. Local interactions –which are paradigmatically represented in reaction-diffusion systems – give rise to macroscopic evolution in which space variables play a relevant role, such as spatial structures and propagation phenomena. On the other hand, with global interactions –where the coupling range is of the order of, or larger than, the system size– space becomes irrelevant and collective behavior is observed to develop in time, typically, in the form of synchronization .

An essential model of globally coupled elements is given by a set of $`N`$ identical oscillators described, in the so-called phase approximation, by phase variables $`\varphi _i(t)`$ ($`i=1,\mathrm{},N`$). Their evolution is governed by the equations

$$\dot{\varphi }_i=\omega +\frac{ϵ}{N}\underset{j=1}{\overset{N}{}}\mathrm{sin}(\varphi _j\varphi _i).$$
(1)
It is known that, for any value of the coupling intensity $`ϵ`$, all the elements converge to a single orbit whose frequency $`\omega `$ coincides with that of an individual oscillator . In this case, $`ϵ^1`$ measures the time required to reach such synchronized state.

In this note we present results on a generalization of the above model, where time delays are introduced. The effect of time delays in synchronization phenomena has already been considered for two-oscillator systems, both periodic  and chaotic . Ensembles with local interactions  and globally interacting inhomogeneous systems have also been studied . None of these contributions make however explicit reference to the relevant case where interactions are global but their propagation occurs at a finite velocity $`v`$. This situation, which naturally introduces time delays, provides a realistic description of highly connected systems where the time scales associated with individual evolution and with mutual signal transmission are comparable. Instances of such systems are neural and informatic networks , and biological populations with relatively slow communication media –such as sound . Our main result is that, since a finite signal velocity makes spatial variables relevant even when interactions are global, globally coupled ensembles with time delays exhibit typical features of systems driven by local interactions, in particular, structure formation and propagation.

## II The model and its solution for short delays

We consider an ensemble of $`N`$ identical oscillators in the phase approximation, governed by the equations

$$\dot{\varphi }_i(t)=\omega +\frac{ϵ}{N}\underset{j=1}{\overset{N}{}}\mathrm{sin}[\varphi _j(t\tau _{ij})\varphi _i(t)],$$
(2)
where $`\tau _{ij}=d_{ij}/v`$ is the time required for the signal to travel from element $`j`$ to element $`i`$ at velocity $`v`$, and $`d_{ij}`$ is the distance between $`i`$ and $`j`$. Note that coupling is still global, since its intensity $`ϵ`$ does not depend on the distance between elements. However, the relative position of the oscillators becomes now relevant through time delays.

The full specification of our system requires to fix the topology and the metric properties of the ensemble, by fixing the values $`d_{ij}`$ for all $`i,j=1,\mathrm{},N`$. Moreover, initial conditions for $`\varphi _i`$ must be provided. In the case of delay equations like (2), it is necessary to specify the evolution of $`\varphi _i`$ at times prior to $`t=0`$ up to a time $`T_i=\mathrm{max}\{\tau _{ij}\}_j`$ . In the following we shall assume that for $`t<0`$ the oscillators evolve independently from each other at their proper frequency $`\omega `$ and with random relative phases. Namely, for $`t<0`$ we have $`\varphi _i(t)=\omega t+\varphi _i(0)`$, where $`\varphi _i(0)`$ is chosen at random from a uniform distribution in $`[\pi ,\pi )`$. At $`t=0`$ coupling in switched on, so that we formally have a time-dependent coupling intensity $`ϵ(t)=ϵ\theta (t)`$, where $`\theta `$ is the Heaviside step function.

Through extensive numerical calculations for a variety of topologies, ranging from one-dimensional arrays to tree (ultrametric) structures, we have found that the system evolves to a state where all the oscillators have the same frequency. On the other hand, in contrast with the case without time delays , their phases can be different. This asymptotic state corresponds thus to a situation of frequency synchronization. The long-time evolution of each oscillator can then be written as $`\varphi _i(t)=\mathrm{\Omega }t+\psi _i`$, where in general $`\psi _i\psi _j`$ for $`ij`$. The fact that these phases are different could have been expected for topologies where not all the elements are equivalent –for instance, when boundaries are present. As we show later, however, such states are also found in homogeneous topologies. In this case, they are associated with propagating structures.

In general, the synchronization frequency is different from the proper frequency of each oscillator, $`\mathrm{\Omega }\omega `$. According to (2), the synchronization frequency satisfies

$$\mathrm{\Omega }=\omega \frac{ϵ}{N}\underset{j=1}{\overset{N}{}}\mathrm{sin}(\mathrm{\Omega }\tau _{ij}\psi _j+\psi _i).$$
(3)
Note that the sums $`S_i=_j\mathrm{sin}(\mathrm{\Omega }\tau _{ij}\psi _j+\psi _i)`$ are in general different for each $`i`$. However, their numerical value must coincide if the synchronization frequency is to be well defined. For a given value of $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$, this constraint provides $`N1`$ independent equations for the phases $`\psi _i`$:

$$S_1=S_2=\mathrm{}=S_N.$$
(4)
Since phases are defined up to an additive constant we can choose for instance $`\psi _1=0`$, and solve these equations for $`\psi _2,\mathrm{}\psi _N`$. Then, $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ can be found self-consistently from (3). For large values of $`N`$, and due to the involved nonlinearities, this results to be a quite hard numerical problem.

An approximate solution can however been found in the case of short delays, i.e. close to the situation where the system is also synchronized in phase, $`\psi _i=\psi _j`$ for all $`i,j`$. Assuming that $`|\mathrm{\Omega }\tau _{ij}\psi _j+\psi _i|1`$, we can write

$$S_i\underset{j}{}(\mathrm{\Omega }\tau _{ij}\psi _j+\psi _i)=N\mathrm{\Omega }\tau _i\underset{j}{}\psi _j+N\psi _i,$$
(5)
where $`\tau _i=N^1_j\tau _{ij}`$ is the average of the time delays associated with element $`i`$. Taking into account Eq. (4), we get

$$\psi _i\mathrm{\Psi }\mathrm{\Omega }\tau _i.$$
(6)
where $`\mathrm{\Psi }`$ is a constant, independent of $`i`$, that can be chosen arbitrarily. This result indicates that, in this short-delay limit, oscillators with small average delays are relatively ahead in the evolution, as their phases are larger. This is plausibly due to the fact that, in average, they receive the information on the system state before other elements with larger values of $`\tau _i`$, which are thus relatively retarded. Note moreover that in a homogeneous topology all the elements are equivalent, so that $`\tau _i`$ is the same for all oscillators. In this case, the system is also synchronized in phase.

Within the approximation of short delays, the synchronization frequency is given by

$$\mathrm{\Omega }\frac{\omega }{1+ϵ\tau },$$
(7)
where $`\tau =N^1_i\tau _i`$ is the overall average delay. It therefore results that $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ is smaller than the proper frequency of each oscillator.

## III One-dimensional arrays

In this note, we specifically focus the attention on the case of one-dimensional arrays. Two different topologies are considered, namely, with periodic boundary conditions –where all the elements are equivalent– and with free boundaries –where the neighborhood of each element depends on its distance to the center of the array. For periodic boundary conditions, which we consider first, the distance between two elements is not univoquely defined, since it can be measured around the ring in both directions. We fix $`d_{ij}`$ by taking the minimum of these values, namely, $`d_{ij}=\mathrm{min}\{|ij|,N|ij|\}`$. The delay time is thus $`\tau _{ij}=\tau _0\mathrm{min}\{|ij|,N|ij|\}`$, where $`\tau _0`$ is the time required for the signal to travel between nearest neighbors.

In equations (2), the proper frequency $`\omega `$ can be used to define time units so that, without loss of generality, we fix $`\omega =1`$. Moreover, our numerical simulations are restricted to the case $`ϵ=1`$. As a matter of fact, we have found that other coupling intensities do not produce qualitatively different results. Note that this would not be the case if the oscillators had chaotic individual dynamics. In such situation, the value of $`ϵ`$ is expected to control the existence of synchronized states.

We have solved numerically equations (2) for ensembles of $`N=10^2`$ to $`10^4`$ oscillators with a standard finite-difference scheme. For small values of $`\tau _0`$ we find that the above described random-phase initial conditions evolve to a state of synchronized frequency where the phases of all oscillators coincide, $`\psi _i=\psi _j`$ for all $`i`$, $`j`$. This fully synchronized state is completely analogous to that of globally coupled identical oscillators without time delays, and corresponds to the approximate solution (6) for the present homogeneous topology. In this case, (3) becomes an autonomous equation for $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$. The sum in the right-hand side can in fact be explicitly evaluated –though its expression depends on $`N`$ being even or odd– and the synchronization frequency can be found numerically by standard methods. In general, this equation admits several solutions. For the values of $`\tau _0`$ where the state of phase synchronization is encountered, however, there is only one possible value of $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$.

At $`\tau _05N^1`$ a qualitative change occurs. Above this critical value, the asymptotic synchronized state is not characterized by a homogeneous phase anymore. Instead, the phase varies linearly along the system, in such a way that a phase difference $`\mathrm{\Delta }\psi =\pm 2\pi `$ accumulates in a whole turn around. The sign of $`\mathrm{\Delta }\psi `$ is defined by the initial condition. Symmetry considerations, in fact, indicate that both signs will be found with equal probability over the set of initial conditions that lead to this kind of asymptotic state. The individual phases are given by $`\psi _i=\psi _0+i\delta \psi `$, with $`\delta \psi =\pm 2\pi /N`$ and $`\psi _0`$ an arbitrary constant. Due to the time evolution of $`\varphi _i(t)=\mathrm{\Omega }t+i\delta \psi +\psi _0`$ a structure propagates around the system at velocity $`V_1=\mathrm{\Omega }/\delta \psi `$.

Similar qualitative changes are found at larger values of $`\tau _0`$. For $`\tau _011N^1,16N^1,\mathrm{}`$, the asymptotic states modify their phase structure in such a way that the phase difference around the whole system, $`m\mathrm{\Delta }\psi =\pm 2\pi m`$ with $`m=2,3,\mathrm{}`$, increases progressively. The corresponding individual evolution is $`\varphi _i(t)=\mathrm{\Omega }t+im\delta \psi +\psi _0`$, which defines a propagation velocity $`V_m=\mathrm{\Omega }/m\delta \psi `$. The synchronization frequency is given by

$$\mathrm{\Omega }=\omega \frac{ϵ}{N}\underset{j}{}\mathrm{sin}[\mathrm{\Omega }\tau _0\mathrm{min}\{|ij|,N|ij|\}+(ij)m\delta \psi ].$$
(8)
For $`m=0`$ this reduces to the case of full synchronization found for small $`\tau _0`$. Figure 1 shows the solutions of equation (8) for various values of $`m`$, and $`N=100`$. Bolder curves indicate the intervals where each mode has been observed in the numerical calculations with random-phase initial conditions. Note the zones where more than one solution exist for $`m=0`$ and $`m=1`$.

Are the transitions observed at the above quoted values of $`\tau _0`$ actual bifurcations, associated with changes in the stability of the asymptotic states? In view of the difficulty of dealing with the linear stability problem for a many-dimensional system with time delays such as (2) , we choose to answer this question by numerical means. For a given value of $`\tau _0`$ we calculate the frequency $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ of a given mode $`m`$ from equation (8) and generate an initial condition which corresponds to that mode added with a certain –typically random– small perturbation. Then, we run the evolution and study the asymptotic behavior. This has been carried out for $`m=0,\mathrm{},3`$ at several values of $`\tau _0`$ in ($`0,0.2`$), for a 100-oscillator ensemble. In almost all cases, it has been found that for sufficiently small perturbations the considered states are stable for any value of $`\tau _0`$. The only exceptions seem to be the states whose frequencies are multiple solutions of equation (8), since in this case the only stable state correspond to the smallest frequency.

The observed transitions are therefore not related to stability changes in the propagation modes. Rather, several modes coexist and the system is multistable. The specific asymptotic state is thus selected by the initial condition. The fact that from the random-phase initial conditions considered previously the system evolves to a well defined synchronous mode, whose order $`m`$ grows with $`\tau _0`$, suggests that the attraction basins of the various solutions could considerably vary in size as $`\tau _0`$ changes. Indeed, from a probabilistic viewpoint, most initial conditions are of the random-phase type. Initial conditions that, for a given value of $`\tau _0`$, do not evolve to the mode marked with a bold line in Fig. 1 should be considered probabilistically rare.

We consider now the case of a one-dimensional array with free boundaries. Here, the distance between elements can be defined in the standard form, $`d_{ij}=|ij|`$, so that the time delays are $`\tau _{ij}=\tau _0|ij|`$. In this topology sites are not equivalent. Delays for elements near the center of the array are in average lower than for elements towards the boundaries. As a consequence, no homogeneous stable states are expected for the coupled ensemble. Numerical results show that, in fact, in the asymptotic evolution all the oscillators have the same frequency, given by

$$\mathrm{\Omega }=\omega \frac{ϵ}{N}\underset{j}{}\mathrm{sin}(\mathrm{\Omega }\tau _0|ij|\psi _j+\psi _i),$$
(9)
but $`\psi _i\psi _j`$ if $`ij`$ for any nearest-neighbor time delay $`\tau _0`$. Unexpectedly, however, the associated spatial structures not always preserve the topological symmetry of the system, as shown in the following.

Our numerical calculations for the case of free boundaries correspond to a 100-oscillator ensemble with the random-phase initial conditions described above. For small values of $`\tau _0`$ we find a symmetric asymptotic pattern, $`\psi _i=\psi _{N/2i}`$, where the central elements have larger phases than near the boundaries (Fig. 2 for $`\tau =0.02`$). This structure corresponds to the approximate solution (6) which, for this topology, predicts a parabolic phase profile with a maximum at the center of the array. Beyond a critical value $`\tau _00.025`$ random-phase initial conditions are instead attracted towards an asymmetric structure, where the phase varies in $`|\psi _N\psi _1|\pi `$ from one end to the other, and attains a maximum in between. Figure 2 shows such structure for $`\tau _0=0.05`$. In average, of course, half of the realizations produce the symmetric counterpart of this asymptotic state. The situation changes again at $`\tau _00.06`$. Beyond this point, stationary structures are again symmetric, as shown in Fig. 2 for $`\tau _0=0.1`$. They result however to be more complicated than for small $`\tau _0`$, with inflection points at $`iN/4`$ and a much flatter maximum. A new critical point occurs at $`\tau _00.11`$, where phase structures become asymmetric once more (see Fig. 2, for $`\tau _0=0.12`$). The phase variation between the ends is similar to that observed for smaller $`\tau _0`$ but the intermediate geometry is considerably more complex.

An analytical or semi-analytical study of these structures –including their existence and stability properties– requires considering the consistency problem discussed in connection with Eq. (3). Fixing $`\psi _1=0`$, the $`N1`$ equations for $`\psi _i`$ ($`i=2,\mathrm{},N`$) read here

$$\underset{j}{}\mathrm{sin}(\mathrm{\Omega }\tau _0|ij|\psi _j+\psi _i)=\underset{j}{}\mathrm{sin}[\mathrm{\Omega }\tau _0(j1)\psi _j].$$
(10)
This problem will be discussed in detail in a separate publication . Let us stress for the moment that, though the appearance of spatial structures was to be expected in an inhomogeneous system as the present one-dimensional array with free boundaries, these patterns are found to exhibit an unexpected richness upon variation of $`\tau _0`$ –including, in particular, symmetry breaking.

## IV Summary and discussion

We have found that an ensemble of identical globally coupled oscillators with finite interaction velocity, which gives origin to time delays, evolves to an asymptotic state where all the oscillators have the same frequency but different phases. Generally, the synchronization frequency differs from the proper frequency of individual oscillators, so that the dynamics of each element in the collective asymptotic motion does not coincide with its individual (uncoupled) dynamics. Phases, in turn, are distributed according to spatial patterns with nontrivial topological and dynamical properties. Specifically, in a one-dimensional periodic array several asymptotic states coexist, corresponding to propagation modes with different velocities. In a bounded one-dimensional array we have observed stationary phase structures whose symmetry properties depend on the size of time delays. These features, which are reminiscent of the behavior of reaction-diffusion systems with local interactions, point out sharp differences with the collective motion of coupled oscillators without time delays.

It is natural to ask whether any structure similar to those described above is observed in other, more complex topologies. To advance an answer to this question, we have performed a preliminary analysis of a two-dimensional array of $`20\times 20`$ elements with periodic boundary conditions. In this case, each element can be labeled by two indices, $`i_x`$ and $`i_y`$, according to its Cartesian coordinates in the lattice. For algorithmic convenience we have defined the distance between elements as $`d_{ij}=ij_1=\mathrm{min}\{|i_xj_x|,L|i_xj_x|\}+\mathrm{min}\{|i_yj_y|,L|i_yj_y|\}`$, with $`L=20`$ in our case. As above, the delay time is $`\tau _{ij}=\tau _0d_{ij}`$. In complete agreement with the one-dimensional analog, we have here found that for small $`\tau _0`$ the system synchronizes both in frequency and phase. Beyond a critical value $`\tau _00.025`$, instead, propagating phase patterns are observed. Figure 3 shows the simplest of these patterns, corresponding to the propagation mode with $`m_x=m_y=1`$.

Work in progress is being devoted to the detailed characterization of the phase structures described in this note, as well as those that could arise in other topologies. The next step will be to study the effects of the present kind of time delays in ensembles formed by chaotic oscillators, where coupling competes as a stabilizing mechanism against the inherently unstable dynamics of individual elements.

## Acknowledgment

This work was partially carried out at the Abdus Salam International Centre for Theoretical Physics. The author wishes to thank the Centre for hospitality.