text:
# Optical and Far-UV Spectroscopy of Knot D in the Vela Supernova Remnant

## 1 Introduction

In an X-ray image obtained with ROSAT, the Vela Supernova Remnant (SNR) is roughly circular with a diameter $`8\mathrm{°}`$ (Aschenbach, Egger & Trümper, 1995). At a distance of 250 pc (Cha, Sembach & Danks, 1999) this corresponds to about 35 pc. Six bow shaped “knots” of emission lie beyond the nominal circumference of the remnant. The shape and location of these knots led Aschenbach et al. to suggest that they were due to ejecta “bullets” that had overtaken the blast wave. Of the six features, the closest to the remnant and also the brightest in X-ray is “Knot D”. The optical nebula RCW 37 (Rodgers, Campbell & Whiteoak, 1960), lies along the outer edge of Knot D. This association with bright optical filaments also distinguishes Knot D from the other five knots.

Although it is grouped with the ejecta bullets, there are two other explanations for the origin of Knot D. One scenario, suggested by Plucinsky et al. (2002) is that Knot D is a shock that has broken out from the Vela SNR due to inhomogeneities in the ambient medium. They analyzed Chandra-ACIS spectra of Knot D and found that the oxygen abundance was solar and that the neon abundance was modestly enhanced, and they found no evidence for abundance differences at different locations in the knot. These results as well as the morphology of the X-ray emission led Plucinsky et al. (2002) to favor a shock break-out origin for Knot D. The other suggestion (Redman et al., 2000, 2002) is that Knot D is associated with RXJ0852.0-4622, a remnant that in projection is within the boundaries of the Vela SNR. They analyzed optical echelle data of RCW 37 and found a velocity split near the bright optical edge in both \[S II\] and \[O III\] emission, and an almost complete velocity ellipse across the nebula in the latter. They inferred that the geometry of the optical nebula is either an incomplete funnel or a wavy sheet. Based on the kinematic structure of emission as well as the optical and X-ray morphologies of the nebula they suggested that an outflow from RXJ0852.0-4622 impacted the pre-existing wall of the Vela SNR to produce Knot D. As they point out, for their model to work both remnants have to be at about the same distance (Redman et al., 2002).

Regardless of its origin, it is known that Knot D is a source of shock excited emission. Blair, Vancura & Long (1995) presented far-ultraviolet observations of the region obtained with the Voyager 2 Ultraviolet Spectrometer. Strong emission from C III $`\lambda `$977 and O VI $`\lambda \lambda `$1032,1038 was detected in the spectrum. The authors noted the sheet-like morphology of the filaments and the spatial coincidence of the X-ray and optical emission and argued that these were characteristics of a shock-cloud interaction (such as had been seen in the Cygnus Loop SNR) and that this interaction produced the ultraviolet lines as well as the optical emission. They suggested that the large Voyager FOV included shocks with a range of velocities, and that $`120`$ km s-1 shocks were responsible for the C III emission and 160–300 km s-1 shocks produced the O VI emission.

In this paper we take a detailed look at the shock-cloud interaction and determine the shock wave paramaters. Our results throw some light on the nature of Knot D, but do not unambiguously determine its origin. We use ultraviolet spectra obtained with the Hopkins Ultraviolet Telescope (HUT) and with the Far Ultraviolet Spectroscopic Explorer (FUSE). These data have much higher spectral resolution than the Voyager spectrum and the aperture FOVs are over a thousand times smaller. We also present optical longslit spectra of the filaments. We confirm that the optical emission is shock excited. By comparing the measured far-ultraviolet emission line strengths with shock model predictions, we find the properties of the shocks around Knot D. The kinematic distribution of the emission around the bow shock is clearly revealed in the high resolution FUSE data. The observations are described in §2, and the results presented in §3. Then, in §4 we analyze the results and present our interpretation. The last section, §5 summarizes the central results of this work and presents some of the issues yet to be answered.

## 2 Observations

Images of the region of interest are shown in Figure Optical and Far-UV Spectroscopy of Knot D in the Vela Supernova Remnant. The top panel is a three color image of the southern half of Knot D. Narrowband H$`\alpha `$ and \[O III\] $`\lambda `$5007 images (first presented by Blair, Vancura & Long (1995)) are shown in red and green, respectively. The blue is the Chandra X-ray image, presented by Plucinsky et al. (2002) (and kindly provided to us by the lead author). Overlaid on the image are the locations of the FUSE LWRS and MDRS apertures. The bottom panel is a two color image of a region around the bright filament. Only the optical emission is shown (H$`\alpha `$ in red, \[O III\] in green) overlaid with the HUT and FUSE LWRS aperture positions.

The HUT observations were made during the Astro-2 space shuttle mission on 1995 March 15. (The basic HUT design is described by Davidsen et al. (1992), and the improvements to the instrument for Astro-2 by Kruk et al. (1995).) The wavelength coverage of HUT was 820 – 1840Å with a resolution of $``$ 3Å. The 56″$`\times `$10″ aperture was centered at $`\alpha _{2000}=09^\mathrm{h}00^\mathrm{m}24\stackrel{\mathrm{s}}{\mathrm{.}}30`$, $`\delta _{2000}=45\mathrm{°}54\mathrm{}31\stackrel{}{\mathrm{.}}5`$, and placed at a position angle of 18° which aligned the aperture with the optical filament. After approximately 1000 s of exposure time at this position, the aperture was offset to a location $``$30″ East, perpendicular to the aperture’s long dimension. We refer to these positions as P1 and P2, respectively (Figure Optical and Far-UV Spectroscopy of Knot D in the Vela Supernova Remnantb). The data were obtained in a time-tag mode which allowed the separation of orbital day and night photons. Since the daytime photons are contaminated by airglow emission, only the nighttime data are used here. The effective exposure times are 932 s for P1 and 1162 s for P2.

The HUT data were processed using an IRAF111IRAF is distributed by the National Optical Astronomy Observatories, which are operated by the Association of Universities for Research in Astronomy, Inc., under cooperative agreement with the National Science Foundation. package originally developed to process HUT data from the Astro-1 mission, and described by Kruk et al. (1999). The flux calibration applied to these data is based on in-orbit observations of white dwarf stars fitted with theoretical models. Other corrections, such as pulse persistence, dark count and Ly$`\alpha `$ scattering have been characterized and included here (Kruk et al., 1995, 1999).

The FUSE observation (Program ID B1080201) was obtained on 2001 April 2 as part of a Guest Investigator project to study the Vela-Puppis region. Eleven exposures with a total integration time of 14,133 s were obtained with the low resolution (LWRS) 30″$`\times `$30″ aperture centered at $`\alpha _{2000}=09^\mathrm{h}00^\mathrm{m}24\stackrel{\mathrm{s}}{\mathrm{.}}30`$, $`\delta _{2000}=45\mathrm{°}54\mathrm{}31\stackrel{}{\mathrm{.}}5`$. This position is the same as the center of the HUT P1 observation, and lies on the bright optical filament (Figure Optical and Far-UV Spectroscopy of Knot D in the Vela Supernova Remnantb). Data were obtained simultaneously through the medium resolution (MDRS) 20″$`\times `$4″ aperture. The MDRS aperture was located 208″ away, 24° West of North from the LWRS aperture on an X-ray bright region away from the bright optical emission (Figure Optical and Far-UV Spectroscopy of Knot D in the Vela Supernova Remnanta).

The wavelength range covered by FUSE is 905 – 1187Å. In this paper we present data from segments SiC2A ($``$905 – 1000Å), LiF1A ($``$1000 – 1100Å) and LiF2A ($``$1100 – 1187Å), the segments with largest effective area in their wavelength ranges (Moos et al., 2000). The data in other segments were used for comparison to distinguish between real features and possible detector artifacts. The raw data from all the exposures were combined and the pipeline CalFUSE version 1.8.7 was used to produce calibrated spectra. A shift was applied to the LiF1A and SiC2A flux vectors to line up the geocoronal emission (Ly$`\beta `$ and Ly$`\gamma `$ respectively for the two channels) at the appropriate wavelength in the heliocentric frame of reference. This was done for both LWRS and MDRS spectra. The source is an extended emission object and fills the apertures. For such a target, the effective spectral resolution is a combination of the instrumental resolution ($``$0.05Å), the slit width, and a further degradation caused by detector astigmatism (Sahnow et al., 2000). The width of the airglow lines in a spectrum is a measure of the effective spectral resolution. In our data, the effective spectral resolutions are $``$0.34Å for the LWRS data and $``$0.09Å for the MDRS data. (These numbers correspond to about 100 km s-1 and 30 km s-1, respectively, at 1000Å.)

The longslit optical spectra presented here were obtained in 1989 February at Las Campanas Observatory. The observations used the du Pont 2.5 m telescope, the Modular Spectrograph and an $`800\times 800`$ pixel TI CCD. A 600 line mm-1 5000Å blaze grating was used with an 85 mm camera, providing spectral coverage, 4750 – 7150Å at 3.0Å per pixel. The slit width was 2″ and the effective spectral resolution was 8Å. The spatial scale along the slit was 0$`\stackrel{}{\mathrm{.}}`$8 pixel-1, with a usable slit length of 7′. The slit was placed along the East-West direction, passing through the optical filaments $`1`$″ below the slit center of the HUT position P1.

The data were reduced using standard IRAF procedures, including bias subtraction, flat fielding, image rectification and extraction of one dimensional spectra. The background was determined from a portion of the slit lying outside the remnant and subtracted from the spectra. The flux calibration was done using observations of standard stars from the list of Stone & Baldwin (1983). Fiducial stars along the slit, and the known spatial scale were used to extract regions of the long slit data corresponding to the intersection of the slit with the HUT apertures. The optical images (Figure Optical and Far-UV Spectroscopy of Knot D in the Vela Supernova Remnantb) show that the emission is fairly uniform within the apertures, so the optical spectra should be representative of the overall emission within the HUT apertures at P1 and P2.

## 3 Discussion

### 3.1 Optical Imagery and Spectra

The optical narrowband images show a striated emission structure. There are bands of green (strong \[O III\]), yellow (strong \[O III\] and H$`\alpha `$) and red (strong H$`\alpha `$) running parallel to the shock front (Figure Optical and Far-UV Spectroscopy of Knot D in the Vela Supernova Remnantb), indicating a systematic variation of the H$`\alpha `$ to \[O III\] flux ratio. The H$`\alpha `$ emission is at its brightest in the region between about 50″ and 70″ behind the leading \[O III\] edge. The \[O III\] emission reaches its peak at about the same location as the H$`\alpha `$ ($`50\mathrm{}`$ behind the edge). In the green (\[O III\] dominated) band of emission, the \[O III\] flux is about 40% of its peak value, while the H$`\alpha `$ flux remains below 20% of its peak value.

The brightest optical filaments lie approximately parallel to the Southeast edge of the X-ray emitting region (Figure Optical and Far-UV Spectroscopy of Knot D in the Vela Supernova Remnanta) and there is a gap of about 1′ between the X-ray edge and the filaments. Observations of other shock-cloud interactions in the Cygnus Loop (Hester & Cox, 1986; Danforth et al., 2000) and in Vela (Raymond et al., 1997; Sankrit et al., 2001) have shown that optical filaments are typically coincident with the edges of bright X-ray features, and not separated as in Knot D. So though the association of X-ray and optical regions is expected in SNR shocks, the existence of a gap between the two is surprising.

The optical spectra of the regions of bright and faint H$`\alpha `$ (P1 and P2, respectively) are shown in Figure Optical and Far-UV Spectroscopy of Knot D in the Vela Supernova Remnant. We measured the integrated line fluxes using the IRAF task, splot, and calculated the surface brightnesses. We derive the color excess from the observed ratio between between the H$`\alpha `$ and H$`\beta `$ fluxes. The intrinsic ratio between the two lines for shock excited emission is 3.0 (Raymond, 1979). The observed ratio at P1, I/I$`{}_{\mathrm{H}\beta }{}^{}3.4`$, implies that $`E_{BV}=0.1`$, a value consistent with those obtained for other regions in Vela (Wallerstein & Balick, 1990). At position P2, we only have an upper limit for the H$`\beta `$ flux and cannot estimate the color excess. Therefore we assume that the P1 value applies to the whole region. We used the extinction curve suggested by Fitzpatrick (1999), and total to visual selective extinction $`R=3.1`$ to calculate correction factors for all the lines. The surface brightnesses of the optical lines, corrected for interstellar extinction are presented in Table 1.

The brightness ratio, I$`_{[\mathrm{S}\mathrm{II}]}`$/I is greater than 1 at both positions P1 and P2. The high ratios imply that the gas is collisionally excited and confirm that the optical filaments are due to shocks. As expected from the narrowband images, the optical spectra at the two positions differ significantly in the strength of \[O III\] emission relative to emission from the lower ionization lines. The \[O III\] $`\lambda \lambda `$4959,5007 flux is about 3 times weaker at position P2 than at P1, whereas all the other lines are about an order of magnitude weaker at P2. Some lines, including \[O I\] $`\lambda \lambda `$6300,6364 are not detected at the latter position. This difference suggests that at P2, the shock is “incomplete” - it has not yet swept up enough material for the post-shock gas to have recombined and produced strong H$`\alpha `$, \[S II\] and other low ionization lines.

### 3.2 HUT Spectra

The HUT spectra of the two positions in Knot D contain numerous emission lines expected from SNR shocks (Figure Optical and Far-UV Spectroscopy of Knot D in the Vela Supernova Remnant). As expected from the Voyager UVS spectrum (Blair, Vancura & Long, 1995), C III $`\lambda `$977 and O VI $`\lambda \lambda `$1032,1038 are the strongest lines below 1200Å. Other lines such as N III $`\lambda `$991, which were lost in the low resolution Voyager spectrum, are detected in these HUT data. Longward of 1200Å, the strongest lines are C IV $`\lambda `$1549, O III\] $`\lambda `$1663 and N III\] $`\lambda `$1751. Many (but not all) of the detected lines are marked in Figure Optical and Far-UV Spectroscopy of Knot D in the Vela Supernova Remnant. One surprise is that N V $`\lambda `$1240 is relatively weak: in spectra of radiative shocks in the Cygnus Loop the line is comparable in strength to the C IV line (Blair et al., 1991).

The integrated line fluxes in the spectra were measured using the IRAF tasks splot and the more sophisticated specfit (Kriss, 1994), the latter for blended lines. The pair of lines, Si IV $`\lambda `$1402 and O IV\] $`\lambda `$1403 could not be deblended automatically. Therefore, it was assumed that the Si IV $`\lambda `$1402 flux was exactly half the Si IV $`\lambda `$1394 flux (valid for optically thin emission). This amount was subtracted from the measured flux of the 1403Å feature and added to the 1394Å line. The surface brightnesses of the lines, corrected for interstellar extinction, are listed in Table 2 along with the correction factors. It should be noted that the interstellar extinction curve at wavelengths below 1000Å is poorly known and is the main source of uncertainties in the intrinsic brightness of the shortest wavelength lines.

The line strengths at P1 are about twice those at P2, but apart from that overall factor the spectra at the two positions are similar. The dramatic differences in the relative intensities of optical lines are not present for the ultraviolet lines. This implies that the shock conditions are similar at the two positions. For instance I$`_{\mathrm{O}\mathrm{VI1032},1038}`$/I$`_{\mathrm{O}\mathrm{III}]1664}`$, a ratio that is very sensitive to the maximum temperature reached behind the shock, is $`1.3`$ at P1 and $`1.2`$ at P2. Thus the far-ultraviolet spectra support the idea that the difference in the optical emission between P1 and P2 is due to different levels of shock completeness, rather than differences in shock velocity. The main difference between the HUT P1 and P2 spectra is the ratio between the two O VI doublet lines: I1038/I$`{}_{1032}{}^{}0.76`$ at P1 and $`0.61`$ at P2. The ratio approaches 0.5 when the line optical depth tends to zero, and approaches 1.0 when the line is optically thick. The measured ratios show that the line fluxes are affected by resonance line scattering and that the effect is stronger at P1 than at P2.

The ratio between the O VI line fluxes can be affected by absorption of the 1038Å line by molecular hydrogen (the Lyman band transitions, R(1)5-0 and P(1)5-0, at 1037.15Å and 1038.16Å, respectively) and by C II\* (1037.02Å). The ratio can also be affected by self-absorption of the lines by O VI in the ISM. Jenkins, Silk & Wallerstein (1976) find the column of low velocity H2 in the J=1 state $`N_{J=1}10^{14.5}`$, 1015.5, and 1017.8 towards three stars behind Vela. Even the highest of these would absorb only about 9% of the flux from a 150 km s-1 width line centered at zero velocity. The more typical lower values for the column would have negligible effect on the O VI $`\lambda `$1038 flux. The C II\* line is stronger, but is at $`173`$ km s-1 relative to the O VI $`\lambda `$1038 rest wavelength. The velocity profile of the O VI lines in the FUSE LWRS spectrum (see below) shows that C II\* absorption would not reduce the O VI flux significantly. The O VI column out to the distance of Vela (250 pc) is $`10^{13}`$ cm-2 (Jenkins et al., 2001), which would have negligible affect on the line fluxes. Also, Knot D lies beyond the remnant boundary, and it is unlikely that other shocked clouds associated with Vela lie in front of it. Therefore, the ratios measured in the HUT spectra should not be modified significantly by foreground absorption.

### 3.3 FUSE Spectra

#### 3.3.1 LWRS Spectrum

The FUSE LWRS spectrum is shown in Figure Optical and Far-UV Spectroscopy of Knot D in the Vela Supernova Remnant. The strongest SNR lines in the FUSE bandpass are C III $`\lambda `$977 and O VI $`\lambda \lambda `$1032,1038. These lines are allowed to go off-scale in the plot in order to show a number of the weaker lines present in the spectrum. The weak lines are well separated from each other and are easily identified. Furthermore, SNR lines can be distinguished from airglow lines by comparing the total spectrum with a spectrum screened to include only orbital night data. Many of these weaker lines have been detected in SNR spectra for the first time by FUSE. For example, this paper reports the first such detection of S III $`\lambda `$1077. Note that the region around He II$`+`$\[N II\] $`\lambda `$1085 is not included in the plots. This range lies at the edge of only one detector segment (Sahnow et al., 2000), and the telescope effective area is very small in this region.

The total line fluxes in the LWRS spectrum were obtained by trapezoidal integration of the flux vector with suitable background subtraction. The strong lines contain several thousand counts, so the random errors in their measured fluxes are low ($``$ 1%). The errors are about 6% for some of the weaker lines, such as S III $`\lambda `$1015 and S IV $`\lambda `$1063. For the weakest line fluxes, particularly those detected in the SiC 2A segment (e.g. S VI $`\lambda \lambda `$933, 944), uncertainties in the background placement contribute to the total error, which is about 20%. The uncertainty in the absolute flux calibration is about 10% (Sahnow et al., 2000), which dominates the statistical errors in the measured fluxes of the strong lines and is comparable to those of the weak lines. The surface brightnesses of the lines, corrected for interstellar extinction, are presented in Table 3.

The fluxes of the strong lines (C III and O VI) plotted on a velocity scale are shown in Figure Optical and Far-UV Spectroscopy of Knot D in the Vela Supernova Remnant. (The velocity is relative to the Local Standard of Rest, in which frame the sun is moving away from Vela at about 12.5 km s-1.) The top panel is an overlay of the two O VI lines. The lines are centered at $`+18`$ km s-1 and the FWHM of each line is $`130`$ km s-1. If the emission fills the slit uniformly, then the observed line profile is the intrinsic profile convolved with the line spread function, which, to very good approximation, is a 106 km s-1 wide “tophat” function. Under this assumption the O VI lines have intrinsic FWHMs of $`100`$ km s-1. The surface brightnesses of the O VI in the FUSE LWRS spectrum lies between the HUT P1 and P2 values (Tables 2, 3). However, the ratio I1038/I$`{}_{1032}{}^{}0.58`$ in the FUSE LWRS spectrum, which is lower than the value at either HUT position. Thus, when detected over the more spatially extended LWRS aperture, resonance scattering has a smaller effect on the O VI emission than when detected over the HUT aperture at P1 or P2.

The feature on the blue wing of O VI $`\lambda `$1038 is identified as C II $`\lambda `$1037.02, a line also detected in a FUSE spectrum of an X-ray bright knot in the center of Vela (Sankrit et al., 2001). The transition leading to the 1037.02Å line has a lower state 63 cm-1 above the ground state. The companion line, C II $`\lambda `$1036.34 is a strong ground state transition (Morton, 1991) and is not detected because it is absorbed by the interstellar gas between us and the SNR.

The bottom panel of Figure Optical and Far-UV Spectroscopy of Knot D in the Vela Supernova Remnant shows an overlay of the C III and the O VI $`\lambda `$1032 lines. The C III line is significantly broader than the O VI line, and it has a central reversal. By fitting the wings of the C III profile with gaussians we find that the observed peaks are centered at $`60`$ km s-1 and $`+80`$ km s-1, and that the components have FWHMs $`100`$ km s-1. C III is a strong resonance line, and while the observed profile is consistent with there being two kinematic components, we expect optical depth effects to influence the line profile. Some idea about the intrinsic velocity distribution of low ionization emission is gleaned from the \[S II\] $`\lambda `$6716 position-velocity data presented by Redman et al. (2000). In an echelle spectrum with the slit cutting across the optical filament about 2′ south of the FUSE LWRS position, Redman et al. (2000) detected bright \[S II\] emission around zero-velocity. In addition to this central component, they found fainter red-shifted and blue-shifted peaks (see their Figure 4). The intrinsic velocity structure of the C III emission is likely to be as complex, in which case the reversal in the observed profile is due to zero-velocity emission being self-absorbed by both filament material and the ISM along the sightline.

#### 3.3.2 MDRS Spectrum

C III $`\lambda `$977 and the O VI doublet are detected in the FUSE MDRS spectrum, obtained at a position several arcminutes behind the bright optical filaments. The line fluxes are plotted against LSR velocity in Figure Optical and Far-UV Spectroscopy of Knot D in the Vela Supernova Remnant. The two O VI lines track each other closely (Figure Optical and Far-UV Spectroscopy of Knot D in the Vela Supernova Remnant top panel). Each O VI line profile has two peaks, centered at $`80`$ km s-1 and $`+80`$ km s-1. The width of the gap between the two components is about 90 km s-1, which is much greater than the typical velocity width $`40`$ km s-1 for absorption by interstellar O VI (Jenkins et al., 2001). We conclude that we are seeing two distinct emitting components (rather than a single, self-absorbed component) along the line of sight at this location. The kinematic structure of the C III emission follows that of the O VI emission (Figure Optical and Far-UV Spectroscopy of Knot D in the Vela Supernova Remnant bottom panel). The C III line has two peaks, centered at the same velocities as the O VI lines. The separation between the two C III velocity components is larger in the the MDRS spectrum than in the LWRS spectrum. Because of its bow shape, and because of the lack of complex optical morphology at the location of the MDRS aperture (Figure Optical and Far-UV Spectroscopy of Knot D in the Vela Supernova Remnant), we conclude that the two emission components are due to shocks on the front and back sides of Knot D. The blue-shifted O VI lines have FWHMs of about 70 km s-1, and are broader than their red-shifted counterparts, which are about 50 km s-1 wide (FWHM). Both C III components have FWHMs of about 50 km s-1.

The surface brightnesses, corrected for interstellar extinction, of the blue and red shifted components of the three lines are presented in Table 4. The blue shifted component of C III $`\lambda `$977 is about 1.3 times as bright as the red shifted component. In contrast, the total O VI flux of the blue shifted component is just half that of the red shifted component. I$`_{\mathrm{O}\mathrm{VI}}`$/I$`_{\mathrm{C}\mathrm{III}}`$ is about 0.9 for the red shifted component and about 0.4 for the blue shifted component. The ratios between the doublet lines, I1038/I1032 are 0.54 for the blue shifted component and 0.56 for the red shifted component. These ratios are closer to the optically thin limit compared with the values obtained for the HUT and FUSE LWRS spectra, which is consistent with the less edge-on viewing geometry expected at this position.

## 4 Analysis and Interpretation

### 4.1 Shock Models

To facilitate interpretation of the ultraviolet spectra, we compare the data with shock model calculations. We focus on the bright filament covered by the HUT P1 and FUSE LWRS apertures, and generate a list of line strengths relative to I$`{}_{\mathrm{O}\mathrm{III}]}{}^{}=100`$. The two apertures cover different regions on the sky, and the O VI surface brightness is lower in the FUSE LWRS spectrum. We use the O VI to O III\] line ratio measured in the HUT P1 spectrum. The line strengths of other high ionization lines below 1200Å, S VI, Ne VI\] and Ne V\], are scaled relative to I$`_{\mathrm{O}\mathrm{VI}}`$ based on the FUSE LWRS measurement, and then rescaled relative to I$`_{\mathrm{O}\mathrm{III}]}`$ based on the HUT P1 O VI to O III\] line ratio. The FUSE LWRS surface brightnesses are used for all other lines in the FUSE bandpass. These data are shown in column 3 of Table 5.

Shock models were calculated using an updated version of the code presented by Raymond (1979). The updates are discussed by Raymond et al. (1997), and some atomic rates for Si III, Si IV and S IV lines have been updated based on the CHIANTI database (Dere et al., 2001). The model follows the emission and cooling behind a steady shock moving into a constant density medium. The main inputs are the shock velocity, the pre-shock density and the elemental abundances. Models are presented for a range of shock velocities. In each case the pre-shock hydrogen number density, $`n_0`$ is 1 cm-3. (The ultraviolet line fluxes scale linearly with pre-shock density so model line ratios do not depend on $`n_0`$.) Elemental abundances, H : He : C : N : O : Ne : Mg : Si : S : Ar : Ca : Fe : Ni = 12.00 : 11.00 : 8.55 : 7.97 : 8.79 : 8.07 : 7.58 : 7.55 : 7.21 : 6.60 : 6.36 : 7.51 : 6.25 on a logarithmic scale, are used in the models. Except for the Oxygen abundance (discussed below) these are solar abundances based on Grevesse & Anders (1989) and tabulated by Ferland (1997). In all the models the pre-shock magnetic field is 1$`\mu `$G, the temperature of the pre-shock gas 10,000 K, and the gas is fully ionized. These parameters do not affect the ultraviolet line strengths significantly. For each model, the calculation is followed until the post-shock gas reaches about 1000 K, by which point the recombination zone is complete.

The ratio of N III\] $`\lambda `$1750 to O III\] $`\lambda `$1664 is relatively insensitive to the shock velocity. For the range of shock velocities between about 80 km s-1 and 120 km s-1, the ratio is a measure of the relative abundances of Nitrogen and Oxygen. There is some amount of uncertainty in the value for solar oxygen abundance. Ferland (1997), from which we have taken the other abundances, lists \[O\] = 8.87. Recently, it has been suggested that the actual value is lower than normally assumed: Holweger (2001) gives \[O\] = 8.73, and Allende Prieto, Lambert, & Asplund (2001) give \[O\] = 8.69. We ran a set of 100 km s-1 shock models varying the oxygen abundance between 8.69 and 8.87 (and keeping other abundances fixed). The observed N III\] to O III\] line ratio is obtained for Oxygen abundance, \[O\] = 8.79, and we used this value in the models presented in columns 4–9 of Table 5.

The optical depths of the strongest resonance lines observed are of order unity in the direction normal to the shock front. When viewed close to edge-on (as expected at and near P1), the optical depths are higher. A significant fraction of the line photons emitted by the shocked gas are scattered out of the line of sight, reducing the observed fluxes. While comparing spectra with shock model predictions, it is necessary to take into consideration this decrease in fluxes due to resonance line scattering.

In the case of the O VI lines, the ratio between the intensities of the two lines of the doublet is a measure of the line optical depth. If we assume that the optical depth along the line of sight is much higher than the transverse optical depth then, as described by Long et al. (1992), we can calculate the intensity correction factor. For an observed ratio I1038/I$`{}_{1032}{}^{}0.76`$, the intensity correction factor is $`2.14`$ (for the sum of both lines). The carbon lines, C III $`\lambda `$977, C II $`\lambda `$1335 and C IV $`\lambda `$1549 are all significantly affected by resonance scattering. The flux ratio between C III $`\lambda `$977 and C III $`\lambda `$1176 provides an estimate of the effects of resonance scattering on the 977Å line. The models predict a ratio of about 80, while the observed ratio is about 20, indicating a correction factor of about 4. This conclusion is somewhat compromised because of uncertainties in the model predictions of the 1176Å line. We expect that N V $`\lambda `$1240 flux is less affected by resonance scattering than any of these other lines because nitrogen is less abundant. Specifically, we may assume that the correction factor for the 1240Å line (actually an unresolved doublet) is not more than the correction factor for the O VI doublet derived above.

### 4.2 Shock Properties

The ultraviolet spectrum provides several diagnostic line ratios that can be used to estimate the shock velocities. The ratios N IV\] $`\lambda `$1490 to N III\] $`\lambda `$1750 and O IV\] $`\lambda `$1403 to O III\] $`\lambda `$1604 are particularly useful: the lines are intercombination lines and so are not subject to optical depth effects, and the ratios do not depend on abundances. At the HUT P1 position, I$`_{\mathrm{N}\mathrm{IV}]}`$/I$`{}_{\mathrm{N}\mathrm{III}]}{}^{}0.32`$ and I$`_{\mathrm{O}\mathrm{IV}]}`$/I$`{}_{\mathrm{O}\mathrm{III}]}{}^{}0.44`$. A shock velocity $`v_s100`$ km s-1 is required to reproduce these observed values. It is clear from Table 5 that such a low velocity shock cannot produce the observed flux of higher ionization lines such as N V $`\lambda `$1240 and the O VI doublet. If we assume that both N V and O VI are equally affected by resonance scattering then I$`_{\mathrm{O}\mathrm{VI}}`$/I$`{}_{\mathrm{N}\mathrm{V}}{}^{}7.5`$. To produce this ratio requires a shock velocity of about 170 km s-1. If N V is less affected by resonance scattering, then the ratio is higher and so is the required shock velocity. The ratio between Ne VI\] $`\lambda `$1006 and Ne V\] $`\lambda `$1146 is less accurate because the lines are weak, but these lines are not affected by resonance scattering, and the observed ratio implies shock velocities in excess of 180 km s-1. Finally, we note that the ratio of optical lines I$`_{[\mathrm{O}\mathrm{III}]}`$/I$`{}_{[\mathrm{S}\mathrm{II}]}{}^{}3.1`$ (Table 1), which requires shock velocities of at least 80 km s-1. (The forbidden line strengths are predicted by shock models but are not presented in Table 5.)

From these comparisons we find that the lower ionization lines, including O III\], O IV\], N III\] and N IV\], come predominantly from shocks with velocities $`100`$ km s-1 and the higher ionization lines such as O VI, N V, S VI, Ne V\] and Ne VI\] come from faster shocks, with velocities about 180 km s-1. The latter velocity falls within the range given by Blair, Vancura & Long (1995) for O VI producing shocks, but our value for the velocity of the slower shock is less than their estimate for the C III producing shocks (see §1). Intermediate velocity shocks cannot contribute a significant fraction of the emission since that would affect all the line ratios in the wrong way. For example, if there were a substantial contribution from say a 140 km s-1 shock, then I$`_{\mathrm{N}\mathrm{IV}]}`$/I$`_{\mathrm{N}\mathrm{III}]}`$ would be higher than observed while I$`_{\mathrm{O}\mathrm{VI}}`$/I$`_{\mathrm{N}\mathrm{V}}`$ would be lower than observed. The lack of correlation between the C III and O VI velocity distributions in the FUSE LWRS spectrum (Figure Optical and Far-UV Spectroscopy of Knot D in the Vela Supernova Remnant) provides corroborating evidence that the two lines arise in different shocks. Since the ultraviolet line ratios are similar in both HUT spectra (§3.2), the arguments and conclusions presented above for P1 also hold for P2.

The observed O III\] $`\lambda `$1664 surface brightness, $`I_{obs}=3.1\times 10^{15}`$ erg s-1 cm-2 arcsec-2 (Table 2). To proceed with our analysis, we make the simplifying assumption that a 100 km s-1 shock is responsible for all the O III\] emission. A 100 km s-1 shock model using a pre-shock hydrogen number density $`n_{mod}=1`$ cm-3 predicts an O III\] line intensity $`4.5\times 10^6`$/$`2\pi `$ erg s-1 cm-2 sr-1 (Table 5). This is equivalent to $`I_{mod}=1.7\times 10^{17}`$ erg s-1 cm-2 arcsec-2. The model prediction scales with the pre-shock density. Also the model predicts the intensity emerging perpendicular to the shock front. Since the shock front is viewed close to edge-on, the effective area of the shock observed is larger than the aperture area. The $`56\mathrm{}\times 10\mathrm{}`$ HUT aperture is placed parallel to the shock front. If the path length through the O III\] emitting gas is $`l`$(″), then the ratio of the shock area to aperture area is $`l/10`$. Thus, $`I_{obs}=n_{100}\times I_{mod}\times l/10`$, where $`n_{100}`$ is the pre-shock density for the 100 km s-1 shock component. Substituting the values for observed and model surface brightnesses, we obtain: $`n_{100}\times l1800`$.

Below we find that the dynamic pressure of the shocks observed at the FUSE MDRS position, $`\rho _0v_{shock}^22.6\times 10^9`$ dyne cm-2. Assuming that this is the pressure driving the shocks at P1, for $`v_{shock}=100`$ km s-1 and \[He\] = 11.0, we obtain $`n_{100}11`$ cm-3. This, in turn, implies that the path length through the emitting gas is about 164″, which is about 0.2 pc at the distance of Vela. The length of the optical filament in the plane of the sky is about 430″, which is significantly higher than the derived path length through the O III\] emitting gas. The difference is probably due to the curvature of the shock front into the plane of the sky, but could also be because the cloud that the shock is running into is approximately cylindrical with its long direction oriented in the plane of the sky. As we showed above, the high ionization lines are produced by faster shocks. For a 180 km s-1 shock, the isobaric condition yields a pre-shock density $`n_{100}\times (100/180)^23.5`$ cm-3.

At the FUSE MDRS position, the observed O VI to C III ratios are 0.4 for the blue-shifted component and 0.9 for the red-shifted component (Table 4). (Note: no correction for resonance scattering was made in this case.) We ran a set of shock models with velocities in the range 140–160 km s-1 spaced by 5 km s-1. By interpolating from the predicted line ratios we found that the observed values for the blue-shifted and red-shifted components are satisfied for shock velocities of $`151`$ km s-1 and $`157`$ km s-1, respectively. We note for shock velocities from 140 to 160 km s-1 that $`I_{\mathrm{O}\mathrm{VI}}`$ increases rapidly while I$`_{\mathrm{C}\mathrm{III}}`$ stays fairly constant (Table 5).

If our line of sight intersects with a shock front once, then the following holds (Raymond et al., 1997): $`I_0=I_{obs}v_{obs}/v_{shock}`$, where $`I_0`$ is the intensity of the shock viewed face-on, $`v_{obs}`$ is the observed radial velocity (absolute value) and $`v_{shock}`$ is the shock velocity. We apply this to the C III emission. The observed surface brightnesses are $`21.8\times 10^{16}`$ and $`16.8\times 10^{16}`$ erg s-1 cm-2 arcsec-2 for the blue- and red-shifted components (Table 4). The central velocities of the components are $`80`$ km s-1 and $`+80`$ km s-1. Using these values in the equation above yields $`I_0(blue)I_0(red)1\times 10^{15}`$ erg s-1 cm-2 arcsec-2. The face-on C III intensity predicted by a 150 km s-1 shock model for pre-shock density 1.0 cm-3, $`I_{mod}(\mathrm{C}\mathrm{III})2\times 10^{16}`$ erg s-1 cm-2 arcsec-2. The line intensity scales with pre-shock density, so the pre-shock density required to produce the observed C III brightness is $`I_0/I_{mod}(\mathrm{C}\mathrm{III})5`$ cm-3. Using the values for shock velocity and pre-shock density derived above, we find that the pressure in the X-ray knot driving the shock ($`P=\rho _0v_{shock}^2`$) is about $`2.6\times 10^9`$ dyne cm-2 ($`P/k_\mathrm{B}1.8\times 10^7`$ cm-3 K).

The dynamical pressure of the shock derived above is about twice the value derived from the HUT spectrum of a face-on shock near the center of the remnant (Raymond et al., 1997), and about seven times the value in the X-ray region associated with the face-on shock (Sankrit et al., 2001). It is also about 25 times the characteristic pressure of the X-ray emitting gas derived by Kahn et al. (1985), corrected for the revised distance of 250 pc to Vela. The high pressure is consistent with Knot D originating in a bullet near the center of the remnant in that the bullets have to have ram pressures substantially larger than the average to punch out through the shell. The enhanced pressure would not be consistent with the knot being a blister on the surface, such as formed in the model suggested by Meaburn, Hartquist & Dyson (1988) for expanding SNR shells. It is interesting that Jenkins & Wallerstein (1995) derived a pressure slightly higher than our value in the region around the line of sight towards HD 72089, which is also near some arcuate optical filaments. They also found several high velocity components in the absorption spectrum of the star. The enhanced pressure suggests that the high velocity emission and optical filaments at the position observed by Jenkins & Wallerstein (1995) may be related to a bullet similar to Knot D but traveling towards us.

We have used steady flow shock models to explain the observed emission lines. At the MDRS location, these lines arise in a shell within the surface of an evolving bow shock. Hartigan, Raymond & Hartmann (1987) approximate a Herbig-Haro bow shock by a series of plane parallel, steady flow oblique shocks; an approximation that they find valid if the cooling time is short compared to dynamical times. Knot D is about 30′ ($`6.7\times 10^{18}`$ cm) beyond the main blast wave. Assuming that it is moving at $`500`$ km s-1 (Aschenbach, Egger & Trümper, 1995), it has taken about 4000 years for it to get to its current position since overtaking the blast wave. The cooling time for a 150 km s-1 shock running into 5 cm-3 material is about 300 years. The front of the bow shock is running into a denser part of the cloud. This encounter results in a slower shock that gives rise to the optical filaments as also the low ionization ultraviolet lines.

The use of steady flow models has another limitation: shocks of 180 km s-1 are subject to thermal instabilities (e.g. Chevalier & Imamura, 1982). The structure and spectrum of such a shock fluctuate in time (Innes, Giddings & Falle, 1987; Gaetz, Edgar & Chevalier, 1988), but the spectrum averaged over time is not greatly affected (Innes, 1992). The spectrograph apertures include emission from sufficiently complex filaments that the fluctuations are probably smoothed out.

## 5 Concluding Remarks

We have analyzed far-ultraviolet and optical observations of Knot D in the Vela SNR, and shown that the emission is due to shocks driven into a medium with typical interstellar cloud densities and normal elemental abundances. We have also found that the dynamical pressure of the shocks is higher than the characteristic value for the remnant. We have estimated that the path length through the optical filaments is shorter than their extent in the plane of the sky implying a curved shock front. The velocity profiles of the lines revealed by high resolution FUSE MDRS is consistent with emission from a bow shock. The over-pressure in Knot D supports the idea that it is a bow shock around a bullet or cloud that originated near the center of the remnant and has punched through the shell. However, there is no evidence for enhanced abundances. If the driver of the bow shock is a shrapnel of ejecta (Aschenbach, Egger & Trümper, 1995), then it remains undetected. An alternative candidate for the driver is an accelerated cloud that originated near the center. The existence of such clouds was suggested by McKee, Cowie & Ostriker (1978) to explain some of the high velocity emission observed in SNRs.

Knot D, in spite of its unique properties, may be one of many such features including the ones observed in the plane of the sky around Vela, as well as others moving radially towards or away from us. In any case, our study provides an estimate of the properties of Knot D that can be usefully compared with results derived from X-ray data. The properties of Knot D can also be compared with those of other regions to find out the extent of their similarities.

The suggestion that Knot D is associated with RXJ0852.0-4622 (Redman et al., 2002) has been made mainly on morphological grounds. The connection also depends on the smaller remnant being at about the same distance as the Vela SNR. The distance and also the age of RXJ0852.0-4622 are highly uncertain (Duncan & Green, 2000) and provide very few constraints on the properties of putative blow-out regions. We have found that the interstellar extinction towards the optical filaments is typical for the Vela SNR. Furthermore our ultraviolet data do not show any peculiarities (e.g. in the velocity distribution) that suggest a connection between the knot and the newly discovered remnant. Therefore, we believe that Knot D is associated with the Vela SNR. It will require additional studies to prove or disprove conclusively the association between RXJ0852.0-4622 and Knot D.

One major issue that remains unanswered is the gap of about 1′ between the optical filaments and the edge of the X-ray knot (Figure Optical and Far-UV Spectroscopy of Knot D in the Vela Supernova Remnant). This is not seen in typical shock-cloud interactions (see references in §3.1) where the X-ray edge and optical emission are co-incident. In those cases, the relationship of the two components is well explained by a model in which the blast wave hits the cloud and a reverse shock is propagated back into the remnant (Graham et al., 1995). In Knot D, the gap must be a consequence of the dynamics of the bow shock. The gap region could contain gas that is hot but with a temperature not high enough to make X-rays. The region may then be a source of bright O VI emission. It could also be a transient region of low pressure as predicted by models of thermal instability (Innes, 1992). A third possibility is that it is a region of cool gas supported by magnetic pressure. Each of these possibilities has interesting implications for the structure and evolution of astrophysical bow shocks, but the existing data do not allow us to distinguish among them. However, it is worth noting that the spatial extent of the gap may be related to the cooling length of the shocked gas. At the distance of Vela, 1′ is about $`2\times 10^{17}`$ cm, which is roughly the cooling length scale of a 240 km s-1 shock in a medium with density 3 cm-3. These conditions may have obtained in the course of the evolution of the bow shock. Detailed models and direct observations are needed for further elucidation.

We thank Paul Plucinsky for useful discussions, and for providing us with the Chandra image presented in Figure 1. We also thank Matt Redman for giving us access to his \[S II\] position-velocity data. H2ools, a software package written by Steve McCandliss was used in estimating the effects of molecular hydrogen absorption. The referee’s comments helped improve the flow and focus of the paper. This work has been supported by NASA grant NAG5-10248 and NASA contract NAS5-32985, both to the Johns Hopkins University.


format: text

text:
# The Branched Polymer Growth Model Revisited

## I Introduction

The statistical mechanics of polymers has become a very prolific research area. During the last decades, many models have been proposed to describe the configurational properties of linear and branched polymers and a variety of methods have been employed to study these systems. The classic model for a linear polymer in dilute solution (or at high temperature) is the self-avoiding walk (SAW) flory53 ; gennes79 . On the other hand, connected clusters (lattice animals) provided a good model for branched polymers in the dilute limit lubensky79 .

The kinetic growth walk (KGW) was proposed as an alternative model to describe the irreversible growth of linear polymers \[4-6\]. Like the SAW, every KGW chain does not intercept itself. But whereas in a SAW the next step is randomly chosen from among all nearest-neighbor sites (excluding the previous one), in a KGW the choice is among the unvisited sites majid84 . Therefore the KGW is less sensitive to attrition. Besides, although both models span the same set of configurations, the N-step SAW chains are all equally weighted while the statistical weights of the KGW chains can be different. Nevertheless, it was shown that both models present the same critical exponents lyklema86 .

Later, Lucena et al. lucena94  generalized the KGW in order to allow for branching as well as for impurities. This generalized model (which became known as the branched polymer growth model - BPGM) was found to exhibit an interesting phase transition (due to competition between hindrances and branching) separating infinite from finite growth regimes lucena94 . In the following years, several authors have studied the BPGM \[8-15\]. The topological and dynamical aspects of the model were investigated neves95 . Besides, the system was shown to achieve the criticality through a self-organization growth mechanism andrade97  and to exhibit a transition from rough to faceted boundaries for large values of the branching probability neves95 ; lucena99 . The model was also studied through an exact enumeration of bond trees and ergodicity violation was discussed onody00 . The question of the universality class of the BPGM was also investigated. In contrast to the common belief that branched polymers belong to the universality class of lattice animals lubensky78 ; havlin84 , the study of the growth process in chemical $`l`$space with estimates of structural exponents led to the proposal that the BPGM belongs to the universality class of percolation bunde95 ; porto96 . On the Bethe lattice, this proposal is based on analytical results porto96 . A further analysis using finite-size scaling techniques led to the conclusion that the BPGM is not in the same universality class of percolation in two dimensions botelho00 .

In the present paper, we revisit the BPGM on the square lattice. We point out that, although the input parameter $`b`$ is named branching probability, it does not have effective control of the relative incidence of bifurcations (branches) in the simulated polymers. This seems to be an undesirable aspect of the model since the degree of branching is an important quantity that is usually measured in real ramified polymers. Besides, according to the growth rules of the BPGM, a monomer which is chosen to bifurcate (with probability $`b`$) but has only one empty nearest neighbor site is compelled to grow linearly thus changing its functionality from $`3`$ to $`2`$. In real experiments this change is not allowed since the concentrations of polymers with different functionalities are fixed. In order to preserve the functionalities of the monomers as well as to recover the meaning of the branching probability $`b`$, we propose a subtle modification in the dynamics of the BPGM. So this new version of the model aims to adapt it to a more realistic scenario and is called the adapted branched polymer growth model (ABPGM). In the following sections, we define the ABPGM and present the phase diagram in the $`(b,c)`$ space. This diagram is found to exhibit a peculiar reentrance. We introduce the concept of frustration and compare the effective branching rate $`b_{ef}`$ with the input parameter $`b`$ for both the original and adapted models. Our results concerning the ABPGM are shown to be much closer to the ideal behavior $`b_{ef}=b`$. Finally, we present a discussion based on the clusters topologies of both models.

## II The Adapted Branched Polymer Growth Model

First of all, let us review the BPGM. Consider a $`L\times L`$ square lattice with a certain concentration $`c`$ of sites randomly filled by impurities. At the initial time $`t=0`$, the polymer starts growing from a monomer seed located at the center of the lattice towards a random empty nearest-neighbor site. At time $`t=1`$, this chosen site is occupied by a monomer (growing tip) which now *may* bifurcate or follow in one direction (linear growth). The growth directions are randomly chosen among the available ones (those which lead to empty neighbors) in a clockwise way. At every time $`t`$ ( $`t2`$), the process is repeated for all actual monomeric ends following the sequence of their appearances. If a polymer end has *no* empty nearest-neighbor site then it is trapped in a “cul de sac” and stops growing (it is then called a *dead end*). If only one adjacent site is available then the linear growth is obligatory. If at least two adjacent sites are empty then the growing end bifurcates with probability $`b`$ or follows linearly with probability $`1b`$. In a particular experiment of the BPGM, the polymer growth is simulated according to the above rules. Depending on the values of parameters $`b`$ and $`c`$, the polymer can either grow indefinitely or stop growing (*die*) at a finite time if all its current tips are dead ends. The experiment is finished either when the polymer touches the frontier of the lattice (*infinite* polymer) or when it dies (*finite* polymer). The ensemble over which averages are performed is constituted by a great number $`N_e`$ of experiments.

Each polymer configuration of the BPGM can be identified with a self-avoiding loopless graph (*bond tree*) although the reciprocal is not always true neves95 . Thus the BPGM can be mapped into a particular *subset* of the ensemble of all possible bond trees. These tree graphs have been applied in models of branched polymers and can be classified by the number $`N`$ of bonds and the number $`N_k`$ of vertices with $`k`$ bonds camacho92  . In a typical finite polymer configuration of the BPGM, one may find twofold and threefold sites representing monomers of functionalities $`2`$ and $`3`$, respectively. The monomer seed and dead ends represent monofunctional monomers. Tetrafunctional units are impossible in this model once trifurcations are not allowed. For a tree graph generated by the BPGM one has the following constraints camacho92 :

$`{\displaystyle \underset{k=1}{\overset{3}{}}}N_k=N+1`$ (1)
and

$`{\displaystyle \underset{k=1}{\overset{3}{}}}kN_k=2N.`$ (2)
The occurrence of bifurcations in the model determines the relative incidence of trifunctional monomers (branches). This is basically the *degree of branching* of the polymer, an important quantity that is usually measured in real ramified polymers. However, although the parameter $`b`$ is named *branching probability*, we shall see that it does *not* have effective control of the relative amount of branches (bifurcations) in the BPGM. Indeed, according to the rules of the BPGM, the parameter $`b`$ is not the probability that any tip bifurcates but instead it is the conditional probability that a tip *with two or more empty nearest neighbors* bifurcates. Every tip with just one vacant nearest-neighbor site grows linearly with probability equal to one. From another viewpoint, it would also be desirable to consider that any monomer that is linking to the polymer has an effective probability $`b`$ of being a trifunctional unit. Even if this were considered in the BPGM, a problem would become evident. Any growing end chosen (with probability $`b`$) as a trifunctional monomer would *not* be able to bifurcate if only one vacant site were available. In this case, the functionality of the monomer would not be respected since (according to the BPGM) the growing end would forcibly follow a linear growth like a bifunctional monomer.

In order to preserve the functionalities of the monomers we propose a modification in the dynamics of the BPGM. Besides to make the model a little more realistic, our proposal turns the branching probability $`b`$ into an effective control parameter of the relative frequency of bifurcations. So it *adapts* the model to a scenario closer to reality and experimentation. We denominate it the *adapted branched polymer growth model* (ABPGM).

The ABPGM is defined just like the BPGM except for the following differences:

1. In the process of polymerization, let a *free end* (a growing tip with at least one empty nearest-neighbor site) be a trifunctional monomer with probability $`b`$ or a bifunctional monomer with probability $`1b`$. If the free end is a trifunctional monomer but there is only one empty nearest neighbor site then it stops growing and becomes a dead end.
2. At every time unit, all current sites on the front of growth of the polymer are visited in a *random* sequence.

We remember that in the BPGM, a free end with just one empty nearest neighbor grows linear with probability one while in the ABPGM, since bifurcation is impossible, the free end stops and becomes a frustrated dead end. This frustration seems to be preferable and more realistic than forcing a trifunctional monomer to turn into bifunctional monomer as it occurs in the BPGM. So, in our proposal, the relative incidence of bifunctional and trifunctional monomers does not depend on the topology of the cluster anymore and is only controlled by the branching probability parameter. The second difference is also important: in the BPGM all tips are *sequentially* visited in a clockwise manner following the sequence of births whereas in the ABPGM they are visited in a random way. The sequential update of the growth front of the polymer (in the BPGM) simulates the formation of parallel chains in the infinite phase (for high $`b`$ and low $`c)`$ like in a crystallization process. This mechanism leads to a faceted-to-rough transition that has been already studied neves95 ; lucena99 . Figure 1a shows a typical BPGM configuration with faceted boundary generated with parameters $`b=0.5`$ and $`c=0`$ (for $`L=51`$); the parallel ordering of chains is caused by the clockwise update of the growing tips. If we simulate the BPGM using the same set of parameters but with a random update instead of the clockwise update we get Figure 1b. In this case, two subsequent growing tips are probably located far apart so that they cannot produce parallel chains. The boundary is less faceted than before. Recently it has been shown that any deterministic growth order is non-ergodic in the sense that it spans only a subset of the space of all possible configurations onody00 . Moreover, for the present purposes, this clockwise update mechanism is undesirable since the development of parallel chains corresponds to an increasing incidence of bifunctional monomers due mainly to geometrical effects rather than to the probability $`1b`$ itself. The relative incidence of bifurcations (which will be defined as the effective branching rate $`b_{ef}`$ in section 4) is much smaller than input parameter $`b`$. Indeed, we anticipate that $`b_{ef}0.15`$ for the cluster of Figure 1a whereas $`b_{ef}0.30`$ for the one of Figure 1b; so the last rate (corresponding to a BPGM cluster generated with random update) is closer to the input value $`b=0.50`$. The effective branching rate gets still closer to the input value if we simulate the ABPGM. Figure 1c is a typical ABPGM configuration (generated with those same parameters $`b=0.5`$ and $`c=0`$) and presents $`b_{ef}0.43`$; the faceted front of growth seems to disappear and vacancies can be found inside the cluster.

The main feature of the BPGM is the phase transition separating finite from infinite growth regime. Lucena et al. lucena94  have defined a critical branching probability $`b_c`$ where the mean size of finite polymers diverges as $`L\mathrm{}`$. The critical value depends on the impurity concentration $`c`$ and separates the finite phase $`(b<b_c(c))`$ from the infinite one $`(b>b_c(c))`$. The probability that a polymer grows indefinitely is null for small values of $`b`$ and increases abruptly in the region of $`bb_c(c)`$. This probability was estimated through the fraction $`P_{\mathrm{}}`$ of infinite polymers in the ensemble of configurations of the BPGM lucena94 . In Figure 2a, we reproduce typical plots of $`P_{\mathrm{}}`$ versus $`b`$ at different values of $`c`$ (with $`N_e=10^2`$ experiments and $`L=1501`$) for the BPGM. In Figure 2b, we present plots of $`P_{\mathrm{}}`$ versus $`b`$ at some values of $`c`$ corresponding to simulations of the ABPGM with $`N_e=10^4`$ experiments and $`L=1501`$. For $`c=0`$, the behavior of $`P_{\mathrm{}}(b)`$ is analogous to that of the BPGM but now the threshold is little bit higher ($`b0.06`$ for the ABPGM while $`b0.055`$ for the BPGM). This difference increases with $`c`$. The most interesting characteristic of the present model may be observed when $`c=0.18`$. For this value, the curve raises at $`b0.32`$, then presents a plateau (where $`P_{\mathrm{}}(b)0.7`$) and finally falls! By a finite-size scaling analysis we have verified that the height of the plateau does not change significatively in the limit $`L\mathrm{}.`$ For $`c=0.19`$, the behavior of $`P_{\mathrm{}}(b)`$ is gaussian shaped. This means that, for certain impurity concentrations, as $`b`$ increases the system goes from a finite to an infinite phase and then becomes finite again! Indeed, this reentrance is confirmed in the next section when we determine the phase diagram of the ABPGM through an analysis of the correlation length.

## III The Phase Diagram

The mean size of finite polymers is a measure of the correlation length $`\xi `$ of the system. If a finite polymer is generated during a simulation, the sizes $`l_x`$ and $`l_y`$ of the smallest rectangle containing the cluster can be determined. The correlation length can then be calculated as $`\xi =\left(l_xl_y\right)^{1/2}`$ where the average is performed over all experiments with finite polymers lucena94 . We show typical plots of $`\xi `$ versus $`b`$ corresponding to simulations of the BPGM (in Figure 3a) and ABPGM (in Figure 3b) for different values of $`c`$ and size $`L=1501`$ (with $`10^2`$ and $`10^4`$ experiments respectively). Each plot of $`\xi `$ versus $`b`$ exhibits only one maximum except for plots of the ABPGM with $`c`$ $`>0.175`$ where two peaks are detected! It can be verified that all peaks of $`\xi `$ do diverge when $`L\mathrm{}`$.

Let us first explain the behavior of $`\xi `$ for the BPGM. For a fixed value of $`c`$ and as $`b`$ increases, the polymer is more likely to escape from steric hindrances and impurities so that the mean size grows to its highest value at some $`b=b_0(L)`$. Above this point, the system is defined to be in the infinite growth regime (of course, the true critical point is obtained in the thermodynamic limit $`b_c=lim_L\mathrm{}b_0(L)`$). As $`b`$ continues to increase, the fraction of infinite polymers grows and the finite polymers get smaller so that $`\xi `$ decreases. As higher impurity concentrations hindrance the growth, $`b_0`$ increases with $`c`$. The critical line of the BPGM is the locus $`(b_c,c)`$ on which $`\xi `$ diverges lucena94  and is shown in Figure 4 (dashed line).

Regarding the ABPGM, the same reasoning can explain the maximum of $`\xi `$ (or the first maximum when there are two peaks). But now this peak is located on a higher branching probability $`b_1>b_0`$ that compensates the occurrence of frustrated dead ends. Just above $`b_1`$ the system enters the infinite growth regime where it remains unless a second peak appears (at $`b=b_2>b_1`$ for $`c`$ $`>0.175`$). In the latter case the system returns to the finite phase! This reentrance from infinite to finite growth regime is a peculiar feature of the ABPGM. For this modified model, there is a certain range of values of $`c`$ where it is very probable that all free ends become frustrated (and stop growing) for a sufficiently large $`b`$ so that the polymer growth is finite again. The ABPGM phase diagram is also shown in the Figure 4. The reentrant phase only exists for $`c`$ in the small interval $`[0.175,0.195]`$.

We have also measured the fraction $`P(N)`$ of finite polymers with $`N`$ bonds. In Figure 5, we have a log-log plot of the polydispersion distribution $`P(N)`$ of the ABPGM on the critical line (running $`10^4`$ experiments in a $`L=1501`$ lattice). The three sets of data correspond to the critical points: $`b_10.06`$ and $`c=0`$ (black dots); $`b_10.32`$ and $`c=0.18`$ (open circles); $`b_20.93`$ and $`c=0.18`$ (squares). The data are fitted by a straight line with slope $`0.75`$. So, on the critical line, $`P(N)`$ decays with $`N`$ as a power law. We have verified that outside the critical line, $`P(N)`$ decays exponentially with $`N`$. Lucena et al. lucena94  have found a similar behavior in the BPGM.

## IV The Frustration and the Effective Branching Rate

The frustration is a desirable event which distinguishes the ABPGM from the original model. It is defined as the interruption of the growth of any free end which was chosen (with probability $`b`$) as a trifunctional monomer but is unable to bifurcate since only one nearest neighbor site is available. It prevents such a free end to continue its growth linearly like a bifunctional monomer (as occurs in the BPGM) and consequently controls the relative incidence of branches.

Clearly, each polymer configuration of the ABPGM is also a bond tree which can be classified by the numbers $`N`$ (of bonds) and $`N_k`$ (of $`k`$functional units). Besides, every dead end is a site which ceased to grow and so represents a monofunctional vertex; it can be subclassified as either a trapped site (if it is in a ”cul de sac”) or a frustrated dead end (otherwise). We denote by $`\stackrel{~}{N}_1`$ the number of frustrated dead ends. For the BPGM, $`\stackrel{~}{N}_1=0`$ since any free end never stops. In order to measure the relative incidence of frustrated ends among those free sites chosen as trifunctional monomers, we define the frustration rate as

$`f={\displaystyle \frac{\stackrel{~}{N}_1}{\stackrel{~}{N}_1+N_3}}`$ (3)
where the average is performed over all experiments. For infinite polymers, the current sites on the front of growth should not be considered in the computation since their functionalities are undetermined.

According to the prior definition, $`f=0`$ for any values of $`b`$ and $`c`$ in the BPGM. We remark that the null frustration of the BPGM does not mean that all free sites chosen to bifurcate succeed but only that when they fail they are transformed in monomers with functionality two.

For the ABPGM, the frustration rate increases with $`b`$ and $`c`$ as it is shown in Figure 6. Indeed, both the excluded volume due to self-avoidance (which increases with $`b`$) and the impurities diminish the chance of success of any free end, so $`f`$ is a monotonically increasing function of $`b`$ and $`c`$.

The effectiveness of the input parameter $`b`$ is evaluated by comparing it with the relative frequency of branches in a polymer configuration. For this purpose, we define the effective branching rate $`b_{ef}`$ as the ratio between $`N_3`$ and $`N_2+N_3`$ averaged over all experiments:

$`b_{ef}={\displaystyle \frac{N_3}{N_2+N_3}}`$ (4)
The plots of $`b_{ef}`$ versus $`b`$ at different values of $`c`$ for simulations of the BPGM and ABPGM (on a large $`L=1501`$ square lattice) are shown in Figures 7a and 7b, respectively. The ideal behavior $`b_{ef}=b`$ is indicated as the dashed lines. Regarding the BPGM, there is evidently a large discrepancy between the input parameter $`b`$ and the output rate $`b_{ef}`$. For $`c=0`$, $`b_{ef}`$ increases with $`b`$ up to a maximum (at $`b0.2`$) and then decreases to zero as $`b1`$. This behavior is explained as follows: for small $`b`$, self-avoidance is reduced so that most sites trying to bifurcate succeed; but as $`b`$ increases, parallel linear chains (like those of Figure 1a) are forcibly generated due to both the increasing excluded volume and the clockwise update. For higher values of $`c`$, the presence of impurities hampers the formation of linear chains and thus $`b_{ef}`$ decreases slower (as a concave function). Anyway, for the BPGM, the discrepancy between $`b`$ and $`b_{ef}`$ gets more pronounced as $`b1`$. On the contrary, for the ABPGM, $`b_{ef}`$ always increases with $`b`$ as a convex function (for any value of $`c`$) and the difference $`bb_{ef}`$ is very small. In fact, for any $`c`$, the ratio $`b_{ef}/b`$ is approximately equal to $`1`$ for small $`b`$, decreases until about $`0.8`$ for intermediate $`b`$ and then returns to $`1`$ as $`b1`$. Such results corroborate the assertion that the input parameter $`b`$ controls the relative incidence of branches in the adapted model.

## V Conclusions

The branched polymer growth model (BPGM) was originally proposed lucena94  as a generalization of the kinetic growth walk majid84  in order to include the possibility of ramification of the polymer as well as the presence of impurities in the medium. The model was found to exhibit a finite-infinite transition due to competition between branching and hindrances.

In this paper, we have proposed an alteration in the dynamics of the BPGM so as to adapt the model to an experimental realism. We have called it the adapted branched polymer growth model (ABPGM). The main difference between our proposal and the original model regards to the growth mechanism of a monomer which is chosen to bifurcate (with probability $`b`$) but has just one empty nearest neighbor site. In the BPGM, such a monomer is transformed into a bifunctional unit so that it grows linearly (with probability one). In our adapted model, that monomer stops and becomes a frustrated dead end. This frustration reveals as preferable and more realistic than changing the monomer functionality from $`3`$ to $`2`$ (as it occurs in the BPGM). This subtle change in the algorithm together with a random update of the growing ends lead to the formation of polymers with new topological patterns and adjusted degrees of branching. Indeed, we have shown that the effective branching rate $`b_{ef}`$ is very much closer from the input parameter $`b`$ in the ABPGM than in the original model.

We have found that the ABPGM presents a finite-infinite transition in the $`(b,c)`$ space with a peculiar reentrant phase in the small interval $`0.175c0.195`$. At this instance, we compare some typical graphs of both the BPGM and ABPGM at the fixed impurity concentration $`c=0.18`$ for three increasing values of $`b`$: $`0.2`$, $`0.6`$ and $`1`$ (Figures 8, 9 and 10, respectively). For the BPGM, all the three corresponding configurations are infinite clusters whose boundaries change from rough to faceted as $`b`$ increases. On the other hand, the typical ABPGM graph for $`b=0.2`$ is a finite cluster (due to the occurrence of both trapped sites and frustrated dead ends); if $`b=0.6`$ the cluster is infinite (since here higher branching overcomes dead ends) and if $`b=1`$ the cluster is finite again (due to a high frustration rate).

We hope that the ideas presented here can add a new degree of physical understanding to the model as well as they can approximate it to the real ramified polymers.

This work has been supported by Brazilian Agencies CAPES, CNPq and FAPESP (through grant No. 96/05387-3).


text:
# 1 Introduction.

## 1 Introduction.

Investigations of general Darboux transformation (DT) theory in the case of differential operators

$$L=\underset{k=0}{\overset{n}{}}a_k^k$$
(1)
with non-commutative coefficients was launched by papers of Matveev . The proof of a general covariance of the equation

$$\psi _t=L\psi $$
(2)
with respect to the classic DT (the shorthands $`\psi ^{}=\psi =\psi _x`$ are used through the paper)

$$\psi [1]=\psi ^{}\sigma \psi ,$$
(3)
incorporates the auxiliary relation

$$\begin{array}{c}\sigma _t=r+[r,\sigma ],r=_0^Na_nB_n(\sigma ),\end{array}$$
(4)
where $`B_n`$ are differential Bell (Faa de Bruno ) polynomials . The relation (4) generalizes so-called Miura map and became the identity when $`\sigma =\varphi ^{}\varphi ^1`$, $`\varphi `$ is a solution of the equation (2).

Such operators (1) are used in the Lax representation constructions for nonlinear problems. It opens the way to produce wide classes of solutions of the nonlinear problem. Examples of discrete, non-Abelian and non-local equations, integrable by DT was considered in , . Some of them were reviewed and developed in the book  and intensely used nowadays . The approach was recently generalized for a wide class of polynomials of automorphism on a differential ring .

A study of jointly covariant combinations introduces extra problems of the appropriate choice of potentials on which the polynomial coefficients depend . This problem was recently discussed in , where a method of the conditions account was developed. Covariant combinations of (generalized) derivatives and potentials may be hence classified for linear problems. In two words, having the general statement about covariant form of a linear polynomial differential operator that determines transformation formulas for coefficients (Darboux theorem and its Matveev’s generalizations), the consistency between two such formulas yields the special constraints. For example, the second order scalar differential operator has the only place for a potential and the covariance generate the classic Darboux transformation for it.

In scalar case such one-potential constructions have been studied in  and developed for higher KdV and KP equations . It was found that the result is conveniently written via such combinations of differentiation operator and exponential functions of the potential as Binary Bell Polynomials (BBP) . The principle is reproduced and developed in the Sec. 2.1 of this paper to give more explanations.

The whole construction in general (non-Abelian) case is more complicated, but much more rich and promising. The theory could contain two ingredients.

i)The first one would be non-Abelian Hirota construction in the terms of the mentioned binary Bell polynomials. On the level of general formulation some obstacles appears, e.g. an extension of addition formulas ) to the non-Abelian case .

ii) The second way relates to some generalized polynomials that could be produced as covariant combinations of operators with a faith that observations from Abelian theory could be generalized. Namely the case we would discuss in this paper.

Even the minimal (first order in the $``$-operator) examples of the ZS problems with operator coefficients contains many interesting integrable models. It is seen already from the point of view of symmetry classification . So, the link to DT covariance approach allows to hope for a realization of the main purpose - construction of covariant functions, their classification and use in the soliton equations theory.

We would begin from the example, using notations from quantum mechanics to emphasize the non-Abelian nature of the consideration. The operators $`\rho `$ and $`H`$ could play the roles of density matrices and Hamiltonians, respectively, but one also can think of them as just some operators without any particular quantum mechanical connotations. The approach establishes the covariance with respect to DT of rather general Lax system for the equation

$$i\rho _t=[H,h(\rho )],$$

where $`h(\rho )`$ \- analytic function, in some sense -”Abelian”, i.e. the function to be defined by Taylor series . More exactly it is shown that the following statement takes place

Theorem. Assume $`\chi |`$ and $`\psi |`$ are solutions of the following (direct) equations

$$z_\nu \chi |=\chi |(\rho \nu H),$$

$$i\chi _t|=\frac{1}{\nu }\chi |h(\rho ),$$

and $`|\phi `$ stands for the conjugate pair. Here $`\rho `$, $`H`$ are operators left-acting on a “bra” vectors $`\psi |`$ associated with an element of a Hilbert space. The transforms $`\psi _1|`$, $`\rho _1`$, $`h(\rho )_1`$ are defined by

$$\psi _1|=\psi |\left(1+\frac{\nu \mu }{\mu \lambda }P\right),$$
(5)
$$\rho _1=T\rho T^1,h_1(\rho )=Th(\rho )T^1,T=\left(1+\frac{\mu \nu }{\nu }P\right).$$
(6)
where $`P=|\phi \chi |\phi \chi |`$. Then the pairs are covariant:

$$z_\lambda \psi _1|=\psi _1|(\rho _1\lambda H),i\dot{\psi }_1|=\frac{1}{\lambda }\psi _1|h_1(\rho ).$$

complex numbers $`\lambda `$, $`z_\lambda `$ are independent of $`t`$ .

The cases $`f(\rho )=i\rho ^3`$ and $`f(\rho )=i\rho ^1`$ were considered in , see applications in . A step to further generalizations for essentially non-Abelian functions, e.g. $`h(X)=XA+AX,[A,X]0`$, is studied in . The case is the development of the matrix representation of the Euler top model . This example of the theory is more close to the spirit of the sec. 3.4, more achievements are demonstrated in , where abundant set of integrable equations is listed. The list is in a partial correspondence with , and give the usual for the DT technique link to solutions via the iteration procedures or dressing chains. One of the main results, we present in the sec. 3.3, is how the ”true” non-Abelian functions appear in the context of the covariance conditions application.

## 2 One-field Lax pair for Abelian case.

### 2.1  Covariance equations

First we would reproduce the ”Abelian” scheme, generalizing the study of the example of the Boussinesq equation . To start with the search we should fix the number of fields. Let us consider the third order operator (1) with coefficients $`b_k,k=0,1,2,3`$, reserving $`a_k`$ for the second operator in a Lax pair. Suppose, both operators depend on the only potential function $`w`$. The problem we consider now may be formulated as follows: To find restrictions on the coefficients $`b_3(t)`$,$`b_2(x,t)`$, $`b_1=b(w,t)`$, $`b_0=G(w,t)`$ compatible with DT transformations rules of the potential function $`w`$ induced by DT for $`b_i`$. The classic DT for the third order operator coefficients (Matveev generalization ) yields

$$b_2[1]=b_2+b_3^{},$$
(7)
$$b_1[1]=b_1+b_2^{}+3b_3\sigma ^{},$$
(8)
$$b_0[1]=b_0+b_1^{}+\sigma b_2^{}+3b_3(\sigma \sigma ^{}+\sigma ^{\prime \prime }),$$
(9)
having in mind that the ”elder” coefficient $`b_3`$ does not transform. Note also, that $`b_3^{}=0`$ yields invariance of the coefficient $`b_2`$.

The general idea of DT form-invariance may be realized considering the coefficients transforms to be consistent with respect to the fixed transform of $`w`$. Generalizing the analysis of the third order operator transformation , one arrives at the equations for the functions $`b_2(x,t),b(w,t),G(w)`$. The covariance of the spectral equation

$$b_3\psi _{xxx}+b_2(x,t)\psi _{xx}+b(w,t)\psi _x+G(w,t)\psi =\lambda \psi $$
(10)
may be considered separately, that leads to the link between $`b_i`$ only. We, however, study the problem of the (10) in the context of Lax representation for some nonlinear equation, hence the covariance of the second Lax equation is taken into account from the very beginning. We name such principle as the ”principle of joint covariance. The second (evolution) equation of the case is :

$$\psi _t=a_2(t)\psi _{xx}+a_1(t)\psi _x+w\psi ,$$
(11)
with the operator in the r.h.s. having again the form of (1). We do not consider here a dependence of $`a_i,b_i`$ on $`x`$ for the sake of brevity, leaving this interesting question to the next paper.

If one consider the $`L`$ and $`A`$ operators of the form (1), specified in equations (10) and (11). as the Lax pair equations, the DT of $`w`$ implied by the covariance of (11), should be compatible with DT formulas of both coefficients of (10) depending on the only variable $`w`$.

$$a_2[1]=a_2=a(x,t),$$

$$a_1[1]=a_1(x,t)+Da(x,t)$$

$$a_0[1]=w[1]=w+a_1^{}+2a_2\sigma ^{}+\sigma a_2^{}$$
(12)
Next important relations being in fact the identities in the DT transformation theory , are the particular cases of the generalized Miura map (4):

$$\sigma _t=[a_2(\sigma ^2+\sigma _x)+a_1\sigma +w]_x$$
(13)
for the problem (11) and, for the (10)

$$\begin{array}{c}b_3(\sigma ^3+3\sigma _x\sigma +\sigma _{xx})+b_2(\sigma ^2+\\ \sigma _x)+b(w,t)\sigma +G(w)=const;\end{array}$$
(14)
$`\varphi `$ is a solution of both Lax equations.

Suppose now that the coefficients of the operators are analytical functions of $`w`$ together with its derivatives (or integrals) with respect to $`x`$ (such functions are named functions on prolonged space ). For the coefficient $`b_0=G(w,t)`$ it means

$$G=G(^1w,w,w_x,\mathrm{},^1w_t,w_t,w_{tx},\mathrm{}).$$
(15)
The covariance condition is obtained for the Frech$`\widehat{e}`$t derivative (FD) of the function $`G`$ on the prolonged space, or the first terms of multidimensional Taylor series for (15), read

$$\begin{array}{c}G(w+a_1^{}+2a_2\sigma ^{}+\sigma a_2^{})=G(w)+\\ G_{w_x}(a_1^{}+2a_2\sigma ^{}+\sigma a_2^{})^{}+\mathrm{}.\end{array}$$
(16)
We shall show only the terms of further importance.

Quite similar expansion arises for the coefficient $`b_1=b(w,t)`$, with which we would start in the analogy with the expressions (8, 16). Equalizing the DT and the expansion one obtains the condition

$$b_2^{}+3b_3\sigma ^{}=b_w(a_1^{}+2a_2\sigma ^{}+\sigma a_2^{})+b_w^{}(a_1^{}+2a_2\sigma ^{}+\sigma a_2^{})^{}\mathrm{}.$$
(17)
This equation we name the (first) ”joint covariance equation” that guarantee the consistency between transformations of the coefficients of the Lax pair ((10),11). In the frame of our choice $`a_2^{}=0`$, the equation simplifies and linear independence of the derivatives $`\sigma ^{(n)}`$ yields two constraints

$$\begin{array}{c}3b_3=2b_wa_2,\\ b_2^{}=b_wa_1^{},\end{array}$$
(18)
or, solving the second and plugging into the first, results in

$$\begin{array}{c}b_w=3b_3/2a_2,\\ b_2^{}=3b_3a_1^{}/2a_2.\end{array}$$
(19)
So, if one wants to save the form of the standard DT for the variable $`w`$ (potential) the simple comparison of both transformation formulas gives for $`b(w)`$ the following connection (with arbitrary function $`\alpha (t)`$)

$$b(w,t)=3b_3w/2a_2+\alpha (t).$$
(20)
Equalizing the expansion (16) with the transform of the $`b_0=G(w,t)`$ yields:

$$\begin{array}{c}b_1^{}+\sigma b_2^{}+3b_3(\sigma ^2/2+\sigma ^{})^{}=\\ G_{w_x}(a_1^{}+2a_2\sigma ^{}+\sigma a_2^{})^{}+G_{^1w_t}[a_{1t}+2^1(a_2\sigma _t^{})+^1(\sigma a_2^{})_t]+\mathrm{}\end{array}$$
(21)
This second ”joint covariance equation” also simplifies when $`a_2^{}=0`$:

$$\begin{array}{c}3b_3w^{}/2a_2+\sigma b_2^{}+3b_3(^1\sigma _tw)^{}/2a_2+3b_3\sigma ^{\prime \prime }/2=G_{w_x}(a_1^{}+2a_2\sigma ^{})^{}+\\ G_{^1w}[a_1+2a_2\sigma ]+G_{^1w_t}[a_{1t}+2a_2\sigma _t]+\mathrm{},\end{array}$$
(22)
when (20) is accounted. Note, that the ”Miura” (13) is used in the l.h.s. and linearizes the FD with respect to $`\sigma `$. Therefore, the derivatives of the function $`G`$

$$\begin{array}{c}G_{w_x}=3b_3/4a_2,\\ G_{^1w_t}=3b_3/4a_2^2,\\ G_{^1w}=b_2^{}/2a_2,\end{array}$$
(23)
are accompanied by the constraint

$$a_{1t}+a_2a_1^{\prime \prime }+a_1a_1^{}=0,$$
(24)
which have got the form of the Burgers equation after (19) account. Finally the integration of the relation (19) gives

$$b_2=3b_3a_1/2a_2+\beta (t)$$
(25)
and the ”lower” coefficient of the third order operator is expressed by

$$G(w,t)=3b_3w_x/2a_2+3b_3a_1^{}^1w/2(a_2)^2+3b_3^1w_t/2a_2^2.$$
(26)
Statement 1 The expressions (11, 10, 20, 26) define the covariant Lax pair when the constraints ( 19, 24) are valid.

Remark We cut the Frech$`\widehat{e}`$t differential formulas on the level that is necessary for the minimal flows. The account of higher terms leads to the whole hierarchy .

### 2.2 Compatibility condition.

In the case $`a_2^{}=0`$ by which we have restricted ourselves, the Lax system (10, 11) produces the following compatibility conditions:

$$\begin{array}{c}2a_2b_3^{}=3b_3a_2^{},\\ b_{3t}=2a_2b_2^{}3b_3a_1^{\prime \prime }\\ b_{2t}=a_2b_2^{\prime \prime }+2a_2b_1^{}+a_1b_2^{}3b_3a_1^{\prime \prime }2b_2a_1^{}3b_3a_0^{}\\ b_{1t}=a_2b_1^{\prime \prime }+a_1b_1^{}b_3a_1^{\prime \prime \prime }b_2a_1^{\prime \prime }b_1a_1^{}3b_3a_0^{\prime \prime }2b_2a_0^{}+2a_2b_0^{}\\ b_{0t}=a_1b_0^{}+a_2b_0^{\prime \prime }b_1a_0^{}b_2a_0^{\prime \prime }b_3a_0^{\prime \prime \prime }\end{array}$$
(27)
In the particular case of $`a_2=0`$ we extract at once from the first of the equalities (27) the constraint $`b_3^{}=0`$. The direct corollary of (25) is $`b_{3t}=0`$. In the rest of the equations the links (27,25) are taken into account. Hence (24) in the combination with the expression for $`b_{2t}`$ produce

$$\beta _t=2\beta a_1^{}.$$
(28)
The last two equations (choice of constants $`b_3=1,a_2=1`$) become

$$\begin{array}{c}\alpha w+\alpha _t+3a_1^{\prime \prime }^1w/2+(2\beta 3a_1/2)w^{}+a_1^{\prime \prime \prime }+3a_1a_1^{\prime \prime }/2=0\\ 3^1(w_t+a_1w)_t/4=(\alpha 3w/2)w^{}w^{\prime \prime \prime }/4+\\ 3a_1w_t/4+3a_1a_1^{\prime \prime }^1w/4+3a_1a_1^{}w/43a_1^{}w^{}/4+\\ (\beta +3a_1/4)w^{\prime \prime }.\end{array}$$
(29)
In the simplest case of constant coefficients $`(b_2^{}=a_1^{}=0)`$ one goes down to

$$\begin{array}{c}3b_3(w_t+a_1w)_t/4a_2^2=\\ [(3b_3w/2a_2+\alpha )w^{}b_3w^{\prime \prime \prime }/4+3b_3a_1w_t/4a_2^2+(\beta 3b_3a_1/4a_2)w^{\prime \prime }]^{}.\end{array}$$
(30)
This equation reduces to the standard Boussinesq equation when $`(b_1=a_1=0,b_3=1,a_2=1)`$ .

We would repeat that the results given in the Sec 2 are simplified to show more clear the algorithm of the covariant Lax pair derivation. More general study ($`a_2^{}0`$) will be published elsewhere.

### 2.3 Solutions. Dressing chains for the Boussinesq equation

The dressing formula for the zero seed potential (39) is standard and includes the only seed solution $`\varphi `$, of the Lax equations with zero potential $`w`$.

$$w_s=a_1^{}+2a_2\sigma ^{}+\sigma a_2^{}=a_1^{}+2a_2\mathrm{log}_{xx}\varphi (x,t)$$
(31)
A next power tool to obtain solutions of nonlinear system is the dressing chain equation: solitonic, finite-gap and other important solutions were obtained for the KdV equations reducing such chain . Going to the dressing chain, we use the scheme from . We would restrict ourselves further to the case of $`a_2=1,a_0=u,b_3=1,b_2=0,b_1=b(u,t)=3u/2+\alpha ,G=3u^{}/4+3^1u_t`$ to fit the notations from . The general construction is quite similar.

The Miura equations (13, 14) also simplifies:

$$\sigma _t=(\sigma ^2+\sigma _x)_x+u_x$$
(32)
for the problem (11) and

$$\sigma ^3+3\sigma _x\sigma +\sigma _{xx}+b\sigma +G=const,$$
(33)
where $`b=3u/2+\alpha `$, $`G=3^1u_t/4+3u_x/4`$.

Namely the equations (32, 33) together with the n-fold iterated DT formula (5)

$$u_{n+1}=u_n2\sigma _n^{}$$
(34)
form the basis to produce the DT dressing chain equations.

We express the iterated potential $`w_n`$ from (32)

$$\sigma _{nt}+(\sigma _n^2+\sigma _n^{})^{}=u_n^{}$$
(35)
and substitute it into the differentiated relation (34) to get the first dressing chain equation

$$\sigma _{n+1,t}\sigma _{nt}=(\sigma _{n+1}^2+\sigma _{n+1}^{})^{}(\sigma _n^2\sigma _n^{})^{}.$$
(36)
Next chain equation is obtained when one plugs the potential from (35) to the iterated (33)

$$\sigma _n^3+3\sigma _n^{}\sigma _n+\sigma _n^{\prime \prime }+(3u_n/2+\alpha )\sigma _n+3u_n^{}/4+3^1u_{nt}=c_n.$$
(37)
## 3 Non-Abelian case. Zakharov-Shabat (ZS) problem.

### 3.1 Joint covariance conditions for general ZS equations

Let us change notations for the first order (n=1) equation (1) with the coefficients from a non-Abelian differential ring $`A`$ (for details of the mathematical objects definitions see ) as follows

$$\psi _t=(J+u)\psi ,$$
(38)
where the operator $`JA`$ does not depend on $`x,y,t`$ and the potential $`a_0u=u(x,y,t)A`$ is a function of all variables. The operator $`=/x`$ may be considered as a general differentiation as in . The transformed potential

$$\stackrel{~}{u}=u+[J,\sigma ],$$
(39)
where the $`\sigma =\varphi _x\varphi ^1`$, is defined by the same formula as before, but the order of elements is important. The covariance of the operator in (38) follows from general transformations of the coefficients of a polynomial . The coefficient $`J`$ does not transform.

Suppose the second operator of a Lax pair has the same form, but with different entries and derivatives.

$$\psi _y=(Y+w)\psi ,$$
(40)
$`YA`$ where the potential $`w=F(u)A`$ is a function of the potential of the first (38) equation. The principle of joint covariance  hence reads:

$$\stackrel{~}{w}=w+[Y,\sigma ]=F(u+[J,\sigma ]),$$
(41)
with the direct corollary

$$F(u)+[Y,\sigma ]=F(u+[J,\sigma ]).$$
(42)
So, the equation (42) defines the function F(u), we shall name this equation as joint covariance equation. In the case of Abelian algebra we used the Taylor series (generalized by use of a Frechet derivative) to determine the function. Now some more generalization is necessary. Let us make some general remarks.

An operator-valued function $`F(u)`$ of an operator $`u`$ in a Banach space may be considered as a generalized Taylor series with coefficients that are expressed in terms of Frechèt derivatives. The linear in u part of the series approximates (in a sense of the space norm) the function

$$F(u)=F(0)+F^{}(0)u+\mathrm{}.$$

The representation is not unique and the similar expression

$$F(u)=F(0)+u\widehat{F}^{}(0)+\mathrm{}$$

may be introduced (definitions are given in Appendix). Both expressions however are not Hermitian, hence not suitable for the majority of physical models. It means, that the class or such operator functions is too restrictive. To explain what we have in mind, let us consider examples.

### 3.2 Important example

From a point of view of the physical modelling the following Hermitian approximation

$$F(u)=F(0)+H^+u+uH+\mathrm{},u^+=u,$$

is preferable. Such models could be applied to quantum theories: introduction of this approximation is similar to ”phi in quadro” (Landau-Ginzburg) model . Let us study, in which conditions the function

$$w=F(u)=Hu+uH,$$
(43)
satisfy the joint covariance condition for the Lax pair (38, 40) By direct calculation in (42) one arrives at the equality

$$[Y,\sigma ]=H[J,\sigma ]+[J,\sigma ]H.$$
(44)
The obvious choice for arbitrary $`\sigma `$ is $`Y=H^2,J=H`$.

The compatibility conditions for the pair of equations (38) and (40) yields

$$u_yHu_tu_tH+[u,H]u+u[u,H]+H^2u_x+Hu_xH+H^2u_x=0$$
(45)
If the potential does not depend on t, it is reduced to the next equation:

$$u_y+[u^2,H]+H^2u_x+Hu_xH+H^2u_x=0,$$
(46)
and x-independence yields the generalized Euler top equations

$$u_y+[u^2,H]=0,$$
(47)
which Lax pair (38,40) with $`Y=J^2,J=H`$ was found by Manakov .

### 3.3 Covariant combinations of symmetric polynomials

The next natural example appears if one examine the link (44).

$$P_2(H,u)=H^2u+HuH+uH^2$$

The direct substitution in the covariance and compatibility equations leads to covariant constraint that turns to the identity, if $`Y=H^3,J=H`$.

It is easy to check more general connection $`Y=J^n,J=H`$ connection that leads to the covariance of the function

$$P_n(H,u)=\underset{p=0}{\overset{n}{}}H^{np}uH^p.$$

Such observation was exhibited in . On the way of a further generalization let us consider

$$f(H,u)=Hu+uH+S^2u+SuS+uS^2$$
(48)
Plugging (48) as $`F(u)=f(H,u)`$ into (42), representing $`Y=AB+CDE`$ yields

$$A[B,\sigma ]+[A,\sigma ]B+CD[E,\sigma ]+C[D,\sigma ]E+[C,\sigma ]DE=H[J,\sigma ]+[J,\sigma ]H+$$

$$S^2[J,\sigma ]+S[J,\sigma ]S+[J,\sigma ]S^2.$$

The last expression turns to identity if $`A=B=J=H,C=\alpha H,D=\alpha H,D=\alpha H,S=\beta H`$ and $`[\alpha ,H]=0,[\beta ,H]=0`$ with the link $`\alpha ^3=\beta ^2`$.

Statement Darboux covariance define a class of homogeneous polynomials $`P_n(H,u)`$, symmetric with respect to cyclic permutations. A linear combination of such polynomials $`_{n=1}^N\beta _nP_n(H,u)`$ with the coefficients commuting with $`u,H`$ is also covariant, if the element $`Y=_{n=1}^N\alpha _nH^{n+1}`$ and $`\alpha _1=\beta _1=1,\alpha _n^{n+2}=\beta ^{n+1},n1`$.

A proof could be made by induction that is based on homogeneity of the $`P_n`$ and linearity of the constraints with respect to u. The functions $`F_H(u)=_0^{\mathrm{}}a_nP_{Hn}(u)`$ satisfy the constraints if the series converges.

## 4 Conclusion

The main result of this paper is the covariant equation (42). See, also the example (44). A class of potentials from  contains polynomials $`P_n(H,u)`$ and give alternative expressions for it. The linear combinations, introduced here could better reproduce physical situation of interest. So, we used the compatibility condition to find the form of integrable equation and reduction tracing the simplifications appearing for the subclasses of covariant potentials. While doing this we also check the invariance of the equation and heredity of the constraints.

The work is also supported by KBN grant 5P03B 040 20.

Appendix. Right and left Frech$`\widehat{e}`$t derivatives The classic notion of a derivative of an operator by other one is defined in a Banach space $`B`$ Two specific features in the case of a operator-function $`F(u)BuB`$ should be taken into account: a norm choice when a limiting procedure is made and the nonabelian character of expressions while the differential and difference introduced.

Definition. Let a Banach space $`B`$ have a structure of a differential ring. Let $`F`$ be the operator from $`B`$ to $`B^{}`$ defined on the open set of $`B`$. The operator is named the left-differentiable in $`u_0B`$ if there exist a linear restricted operator $`L(u_0)`$, acting also from B to B’ with the property

$$L(u_0+h)L(u_0)=L(u_0)h+\alpha (u_0,h),h0,$$
(49)
where $`\alpha (u_0,h)/h0.`$ The operator $`L(u_0)=F^{}(u_0)`$ is referred as the operator of the (strong) left derivative of the function $`F(u)`$. The right derivative $`\widehat{F}^{}(u_0)`$ could be defined by the similar expression and conditions, if one changes $`Lhh\widehat{L}`$ in the equality (49).

The addition of the half of the right and left differentials

$$(F^{}(u_0)h+h\widehat{F}^{}(u_0))/2$$
(50)
also approximates the difference $`L(u_0+h)L(u_0)`$ in the sense of the FD definition.