text:
# Parent Stars of Extrasolar Planets VII: New Abundance Analyses of 30 Systems

## 1 Introduction

We have steadily reported the results of our spectroscopic analyses of stars-with-planets (hereafter, SWPs) in our series of studies on this topic (Gonzalez 1997, Paper I; Gonzalez 1998, Paper II; Gonzalez & Vanture 1998, Paper III; and Gonzalez et al. 1999, Paper IV; Gonzalez & Laws 2000, Paper V; Gonzalez et al. 2001, Paper VI), and continue this effort here with our most recent findings. Other similar studies include Fuhrmann et al. (1998), Santos et al. (2000, 2001a, 2002), Takeda et al. (2001), and Zhao et al. (2002). Such intensive, detailed, and persistent spectroscopic programs have been demanded by the observed correlations between chemical abundances and other characteristics among SWPs (c.f. Paper VI, Santos et al. 2002, Gonzalez 2003). By providing well-constrained stellar parameters for a homogeneously analyzed cohort of SWPs, we hope to provide further insight into these trends and to support research into the underlying physics which gives rise to them.

In Section 2 we discuss our program of observations, and in Section 3 we present a brief review of our analysis method and new results for 25 SWPs, along with updated parameters for 5 previously analyzed systems. Additionally, we report on HD 202206, which has been reported by Udry et al. (2002) to harbor a companion with a minimum mass of 17.5 MJ. In Section 4 we compare our findings both to similar spectroscopic studies and recently recalibrated photometric estimates, and examine several subsamples of SWPs and field stars with well-determined stellar parameters for potential trends in metallicity, Galactic orbits, and stellar mass. We also offer interpretations of these results in light of current theories of planetary system evolution. We briefly summarize the main conclusions and discuss the implications of our results in Section 5.

## 2 Sample and Observations

High-resolution, high S/N ratio spectra of 24 stars were obtained with the 2dcoude echelle spectrograph at the McDonald Observatory 2.7 m telescope using the same instrumental setup as described in Paper V. An additional set of 7 southern stars were observed over two nights using the echelle spectrograph of the CTIO 4 m Blanco telescope. Of these 31 targets, 25 were selected because they had been reported to harbor substellar companions (see Table 1 for details of the discovery papers), but had not been observed and analyzed by our group using the methods we have consistently employed on previously announced SWPs. These stars represented all of the known SWPs which were appropriate targets for our analysis, but which we had not studied as of the dates of observations. HD 202206 was also included in this set, although its companion’s minimum-mass estimate of 17.5 MJ suggests that it is more likely a brown dwarf than a planet. Two stars, HD 95128 and HD 117176, which had been previously analyzed in Paper II using spectra from the McDonald Observatory 2.1 m telescope and the Sandiford cassegrain echelle, were observed again using the 2.7 m instrument combination. These repeat observations were made due both to the higher quality of spectra which could be obtained, as well as to increase the self-consistency of our SWP sample. We also obtained new spectra of HD 16141, HD 37124, and HD 46375, each of which we had previously analyzed in Paper VI using Keck spectra. The new spectra of these stars provides considerably expanded wavelength coverage, and allows us to employ our full atomic linelist in deriving results. Several spectra of hot stars with high $`v\mathrm{sin}i`$ values were also obtained on each night in order to divide out telluric lines in the McDonald and CTIO spectra. Table 1 presents additional details of the SWPs observations.

We employed the same data reduction methods for echelle images as those detailed in Paper V to produce one-dimensional spectra covering most of the visible spectrum. Equivalent widths (EWs) were measured for the same set of Fe I and Fe II lines presented in Paper VI; the results are presented in Tables 2 and 3.111These tables are available in the electronic version of this paper. EWs were also measured for several additional elements, and those results will be reported in a subsequent paper.

## 3 Analysis

### 3.1 Spectroscopic Analysis

Our method of determining the stellar parameters $`T_{\mathrm{eff}}`$, $`\mathrm{log}g`$, $`\xi _\mathrm{t}`$, and \[Fe/H\] is the same as that employed in our previous studies in this series, to which the reader is referred for more details. The results for our 31 program stars are given in Table 4.

Since we have not previously used the CTIO 4 m telescope for spectroscopic studies of SWPs, we need an independent check on the zero point of the derived \[Fe/H\] values. A comparison of our CTIO-based metallicity results with the spectroscopic studies of Santos et al. (2000, 2001a) shows a mean offset of $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$\[Fe/H\]$`=0.01`$, which is the same result we find in comparing our entire McDonald-based SWPs sample to theirs. We therefore assume that the McDonald 2.7 m and CTIO 4 m spectra share a common zero point, and add no corrective offset to the CTIO-based results.

### 3.2 Derived Parameters

In previous papers in this series we have primarily employed the stellar evolutionary isochrones of Schaller et al. (1992) and Schaerer et al. (1993), along with the Hipparcos parallaxes (ESA 1997) and our spectroscopic $`T_{\mathrm{eff}}`$ estimates to determine masses, ages, and theoretical $`\mathrm{log}g`$ values.222Note, the theoretical $`\mathrm{log}g`$ values are derived from theoretical stellar evolutionary isochrones at the age which agrees with the observed Teff, Mv, and \[Fe/H\] values. In this work we have chosen to alter this method slightly by using the more recent Padova isochrone set (cf. Girardi et al. 2000, Salasnich et al. 2000). This was done in order to eliminate the offsets in $`T_{\mathrm{eff}}`$ and Mv that we had found necessary to reproduce solar values in the Schaller and Schaerer isochrone set (see Paper II), and also in order to take advantage of the greater range of age, mass, and metallicity values covered by the Padova isochrone set.

As before, we used our spectroscopic $`T_{\mathrm{eff}}`$ and Hipparcos Mv values to determine a best fitting isochrone for \[Fe/H\] values above and below the spectroscopic \[Fe/H\] of the star in question. We then interpolated between these high- and low-metallicity isochrones to estimate values for each star’s age, mass, and theoretical $`\mathrm{log}g`$. In addition to performing this updated procedure on the 31 new spectroscopic results presented here, we re-analyzed all of the stars previously reported on in our SWPs series. This set of homogeneously derived evolutionary parameters for 58 SWPs is presented in Table 5, along with estimates of space velocities from Hipparcos data, and additional age estimates based on the stellar activity index, $`R_{\mathrm{HK}}^{^{}}`$.

Several of the stars in Table 5 deserve note. Due to its location in the H-R diagram, HD 8574 presents two close but unique and equally viable solutions for its derived parameters, at \[Mass (M), Age (Gyr), $`\mathrm{log}g`$\] values of \[1.16, 4.4, 4.20\] or \[1.11, 5.6, 4.18\]. This degeneracy arises due to the overlap in this region of the H-R diagram of the Main Sequence and the post-main sequence blue “hook” of somewhat more massive stars.

An additional four stars - HD 6434, HD 37124, HD 46375, and HD 168746 - lie in regions of the H-R diagram which are too red and/or too luminous to be well fit by isochrones with appropriate metallicities and cosmologically reasonable ages. Figure 1 presents H-R diagrams of these four stars along with Padova isochrones of 14.1, 15.8 and 17.8 Gyr, selected to match as closely as possible our spectroscopic \[Fe/H\] values for each star. Note that HD 6434 and HD 168746 are significantly more metal-poor than stars which would lie precisely on the isochrones presented – isochrones of the same ages but with proper, lower metallicities would have higher temperatures and lie further to the left on these plots.

In contrast to the extreme ages predicted by the Padova isochrones, we note that while HD 6434 has a space velocity suggestive of old age, the other three stars evidence relatively modest space motions, and furthermore three of the four possess $`R_{\mathrm{HK}}^{^{}}`$ values which indicate ages less than 5 Gyr (HD 168746 has no published $`R_{\mathrm{HK}}^{^{}}`$ values). HD 37124 and HD 46375 have been previously identified as possible ‘red stragglers’ in Paper VI, and the very similar $`T_{\mathrm{eff}}`$ values we find in this work reinforce this claim. We have previously proposed that these stars might be overluminous due to the presence of unseen stellar companions; however, a recent adaptive optics search for nearby stellar companions to SWPs by Luhman and Jayawardhana (2002) failed to detect any accompanying objects capable of producing the necessary luminosity enhancements for HD 37124 or HD 46375. In light of these unusual and conflicting findings, we recommend that HD 6434 and HD 168746 also be examined for close stellar companions, and that all four of these ‘red stragglers’ be targeted for follow-up studies to determine the source of their unorthodox characteristics.

## 4 Discussion

### 4.1 Comparisons with Other Studies

Continuing efforts to characterize F, G, and K dwarfs in the solar neighborhood, as well as the considerable attention focused on the discovery and subsequent follow-up studies of SWPs themselves, have resulted in the development of multiple independently produced sets of spectroscopic and photometric estimates of basic stellar parameters for these objects. In the following subsections we compare our results to those of several recent studies.

#### 4.1.1 Metallicity

Spectroscopic values of \[Fe/H\] have been reported by Santos et al. (2000, 2001a, 2002) for most of the stars in the present study. In comparing \[Fe/H\] values between the two sets, we find a mean difference of \[Fe/H\]$`{}_{\mathrm{Here}}{}^{}`$\[Fe/H\]$`{}_{\mathrm{Santos}}{}^{}=0.009\pm 0.007`$, with a standard deviation of $`0.039`$. This very close agreement is not a complete surprise, given the considerable similarity in the analysis method used by our group and that of Santos et al., but is nevertheless an encouraging indicator of the consistency and precision of our results. Additional comparisons of our spectroscopic \[Fe/H\] values for SWPs with those reported by several other investigators can be found in Gonzalez (2003).

Martell & Laughlin (2002) and Kotovena et al. (2002) offer newly calibrated equations for estimating metallicities from photometric data. The former utilizes Strömgren indices to estimate \[Fe/H\], while the latter employ luminosities (Mv) andJohnson-Cousins \[$`BV`$\] colors to determine \[Fe/H\] and is specifically formulated for later spectral types (5.5 $`<`$ Mv $`<`$ 7.3). We used these to calculate photometric \[Fe/H\] values for a set of 69 stars with substellar radial velocity (RV) companions for which previous spectroscopic metallicity results exist, using the Kotoneva method for all stars with Mv $`>`$ 5.50, and the Martell/Laughlin equation for all brighter stars. We find a mean offset of \[Fe/H\]$`{}_{\mathrm{Spec}}{}^{}`$\[Fe/H\]$`{}_{\mathrm{Phot}}{}^{}=0.10\pm 0.01`$, with a standard deviation of $`0.10`$ between the spectroscopic and photometric estimates. Figure 2 shows the relation of this offset with $`T_{\mathrm{eff}}`$, $`\mathrm{log}g`$, and \[Fe/H\], which reveals no significant trend with any of these parameters. This suggests a zero-point shift in \[Fe/H\] between the calibrating spectra of these photometric studies and the spectroscopic studies discussed here.

#### 4.1.2 Surface Gravity and Mass

For an independent check on our $`\mathrm{log}g`$ and mass estimates, we turn to Allende Prieto & Lambert (1999, hereafter APL99), who utilized the isochrones of Bertelli et al. (1994) and Hipparcos data to generate estimates of mass and $`\mathrm{log}g`$ for just over 17,000 stars within 100 pc of the Sun. Of the 58 SWPs listed in Table 5, 53 are also included in the APL99 sample, allowing us to calculate tables of deviations between our two data sets and examine these differences for trends. We find that both our spectroscopic and theoretical estimates of $`\mathrm{log}g`$ compare favorably with those of APL99, with the following mean offsets: $`\mathrm{log}g_{\mathrm{APL99}}\mathrm{log}g_{\mathrm{spec}}=0.01\pm 0.02`$; $`\mathrm{log}g_{\mathrm{APL99}}\mathrm{log}g_{\mathrm{theory}}=0.03\pm 0.01`$.

Our mass estimates are also in very good agreement with APL99, with a mean difference of M$`{}_{\mathrm{APL99}}{}^{}`$M$`{}_{\mathrm{spec}}{}^{}=\mathrm{\Delta }M=0.04\pm 0.02`$ M. However, we do find a relationship between the deviations in mass estimates and \[Fe/H\], which we attribute to the exclusive use of solar metallicity isochrones by APL99. We have derived the following second-order equation to correct for this:

$$\mathrm{\Delta }M=0.2234[Fe/H]^20.3023[Fe/H]0.0095$$
(1)
Provided \[Fe/H\] values from other sources are available (e.g. from Strömgren colors, as in Martell & Laughlin (2002)), this correction may be applied to the APL99 data to provide somewhat more accurate estimates of stellar mass.

#### 4.1.3 Effective Temperature

A comparison of our values for $`T_{\mathrm{eff}}`$ with those of APL99 show a mean difference of $`T_{\mathrm{eff}(\mathrm{spec})}T_{\mathrm{eff}(\mathrm{phot})}=34\pm 16`$ K, with a standard error of 120 K, a reasonable match given the disparate methods employed and the lower precision of the temperatures reported in that work. Similarly, spectroscopic estimates of $`T_{\mathrm{eff}}`$ available from the Geneva Extrasolar Planet Search Programme website (Santos et al. (2001a), Santos et al. (2002), Perrier et al. (2002)) for 30 of the 31 stars analyzed here are also in close agreement, with a mean difference of $`40\pm 10`$ K and a standard error of 55 K. For further comparisons of our temperature estimates with those of additional spectroscopic studies see Gonzalez (2003).

#### 4.1.4 Age

Independent age estimates based on $`R_{\mathrm{HK}}^{^{}}`$ values are available for 44 of the 58 stars listed in Table 5 (the remainder either lack published $`R_{\mathrm{HK}}^{^{}}`$ values or possess highly uncertain spectroscopic ages). Figure 3 shows the deviations between our Padova ages and those based on $`R_{\mathrm{HK}}^{^{}}`$ estimates as a function of $`T_{\mathrm{eff}}`$, and we note a distinct trend of relatively lower $`R_{\mathrm{HK}}^{^{}}`$ age with increasing stellar temperature, in agreement with a systematic offset in $`R_{\mathrm{HK}}^{^{}}`$ age with spectral type previously noted amongst SWPs by Barnes (2001). Although the $`\mathrm{log}R_{\mathrm{HK}}^{^{}}`$ values quoted in Table 5 may not be representative of the true activity levels of the star in question (as such reliability requires observations over several years to account for variability in stellar activity), it is unclear how such observational uncertainties could lead to the trends seen here and amongst the SWPs studied in Barnes (2001). A likely source of systematic offset between the two age estimates may be found in the different isochrone sets used; the $`R_{\mathrm{HK}}^{^{}}`$ age calibration we employ is from Donahue (1993), which follows the method of Soderblom et al. (1991) who utilized the isochrones of Maeder (1976). In light of these points and those raised by many other studies (c.f. Donahue (1998)), the evidence we present strongly suggests a need to revise the $`R_{\mathrm{HK}}^{^{}}`$ age calibration.

### 4.2 Spectroscopic Sample

Potential correlations between the metallicities and other physical characteristics of SWPs have been remarked upon since shortly after the discoveries of these systems (c.f. Paper I, Marcy and Butler (1997)), and more recent studies have pursued these possibilities as the sample of SWPs has grown (Paper VI, Reid (2002), Santos et al. (2002)). We continue this by examining several of these trends below in light of the new data presented, using a “Spectroscopic Sample” of SWPs constructed in the manner of and for the reasons described in Paper VI. Accordingly, it includes only SWPs for which we have derived spectroscopic \[Fe/H\] values, along with 19 SWPs with parameters from Santos et al. (2002) (owing to the similarity of our methods and results – see above). We further exclude all stars whose companions have a minimum mass greater than 11 MJ, as well as seven biased objects, specifically added to Doppler search programs due to their high metallicities: BD -10 3166, HD 2039, HD 4203, HD 30177, HD 73526, HD 76700, HD 108874. Lastly, we have chosen to continue to include in our Spectroscopic Sample HD 192263, whose planetary companion has been challenged by Henry et al. (2002). While we believe the evidence in that work to be compelling, the discovery team of HD 192263 has not yet retracted its findings 333Although the same group has recently retracted claims of RV companions to HD 13507 and HD 223084 (neither of which have been included in any of our statistical studies).; we will, however, make careful note of the presence of HD 192263 in any figures or derived statistical quantities. In sum, these constraints yield a Spectroscopic Sample which contains a total of 71 SWPs.

#### 4.2.1 Metallicity Distribution

As first suggested in Paper I, and later confirmed by a number of detailed studies (c.f. Paper VI, Santos et al. (2001a), Reid (2002)), the current population of stars hosting radial velocity companions is metal-rich by $`0.25`$ dex in comparison to similarly selected samples of field stars not known to harbor planetary or brown-dwarf companions (exact values of this offset vary slightly depending on the nature of the SWPs and control samples). The data presented here continue to support this now well-established feature of SWPs, with a mean metallicity of \[Fe/H\]$`=+0.12\pm 0.02`$ for our Spectroscopic Sample, compared with an average \[Fe/H\] of $`0.10\pm 0.03`$ for the stars-without-planets sample of Santos et al. (2001a). This latter sample shares the same zero point as the larger CORALIE sample presented in Figure 3c of that work, and we compare the distribution of \[Fe/H\] among our Spectroscopic Sample with the $`1000`$ CORALIE stars in Figure 4.

We do note, however, that while the mean \[Fe/H\] for SWPs is still significantly higher than that of the general population of stars in the solar neighborhood, it is slightly lower than that of the Spectroscopic Sample studied in Paper VI. This raises the possibility that as the nature of the planets detected by Doppler searches evolves to include both less massive planets and systems with longer orbital periods, the metallicity distribution of SWPs may change as well. We illustrate this in Figure 5, which overplots histograms of metallicities from the 38 stars in the Spectroscopic Sample of Paper VI with those of the 25 SWPs reported here (the updated \[Fe/H\] values for HD 16141, HD 37124, HD 46375, HD 95128, and HD 117176 are incorporated into the Paper VI histogram data). This may suggest a more subtle relationship between host star metallicity and the periods and/or masses of planetary companions – a possibility we will investigate further below – and is a development which should be monitored closely.

#### 4.2.2 Young SWPs

In keeping with our analysis in Paper VI, we have prepared a subsample of SWPs which, in addition to meeting the criteria for inclusion in the Spectroscopic Sample, have spectroscopic age estimates of less than 2.0 Gyr. This sample is shown in Figure 6, where again in analogy with Paper VI we plot \[Fe/H\] against mean Galactocentric distance, $`R_\mathrm{M}`$, relative to the position of the Sun, $`R_0`$, for both young SWPs and a sample of young field stars from Edvardsson et al. (1993) (HD 192263, which is young, but whose status as a SWP is in question, is plotted separately as a square symbol). The dashed line is a least-squares fit to the sample of field stars, and we find that with the exception of HD 130322, all of the SWPs lie above this trend.

In a recent study of the Galactic orbits of SWPs Barbieri & Gratton (2002) find a similar result, in that at any Galactic radius SWPs possess metallicities above the mean of nearby field stars. The authors suggest that this is best explained by a scenario in which the presence of companions is responsible for the observed high metallicities. Although comparisons between our studies are not exact – our young SWPs sample does not have as large a range in \[Fe/H\] values as the age-independent Barbieri & Gratton study, but suffers less from the effects of orbital diffusion – we do confirm this observational result. However, in contrast to Barbieri & Gratton we also find evidence of a difference in the slope of the metallicity-Galactocentric radius relation between SWPs and the field star sample. Because SWPs are so much more common among metal-rich stars, the trend with Galactocentric radius is observed to be steeper than that amongst the field population. This could be interpreted as supporting a hypothesis in which the high metallicity is reponsible for the presence of companions.

#### 4.2.3 Planetary Characteristics

Figures 7 and 8 present (respectively) the eccentricities and $`M\mathrm{sin}i`$ values of the planets in the Spectroscopic Sample, shown in each case as a function of host star metallicity (for SWPs with more than one detected companion, the eccentricity of the innermost planet and the combined $`M\mathrm{sin}i`$ value of all planets in the system is adopted). In general agreement with Santos et al. (2002), no significant trend is visible for either distribution, although the upper envelope of each is observed to increase somewhat with higher values of host star \[Fe/H\].

### 4.3 The California & Carnegie Planet Search Sample

As discussed at length in Reid (2002), Santos et al. (2001a, 2002), and Gonzalez (2003), investigations of possible uniquely characteristic observational features of SWPs face the difficulty of the lack of a comprehensive, volume-limited control sample. We can mitigate this somewhat by strongly limiting the scope of our query, as in the case of the young SWPs; however, in order to evaluate more global trends among SWPs, we require a more complete understanding of the stars being searched for RV companions. Figure 4 approaches this goal with its comparison of the metallicities of SWPs to the CORALIE sample described in Santos et al. (2001a), but no additional data beyond the relative frequency of stars as a function of metallicity has been published to date on that control sample, rendering further inquiries into other physical characteristics difficult, if not impossible.

Mass is one important property of SWPs not yet examined in detail. In order to determine any potential trend in the masses of SWPs, we prepared a control sample from the list of 889 stars currently under observation by the California and Carnegie Planet Search Program (CCPSP), for which accurate mean RV data has recently been published by Nidever et al. (2002). This set of stars was selected because its detailed publication allows for further investigation of its member stars by additional methods, and its inherent inclusion of those SWPs found by the CCPSP enables ready comparison of those stars discovered to harbor RV companions with similarly studied stars which do not yet show such evidence.

From the initial data set of 889 stars we removed all stars with visual magnitudes fainter than 8.0, the current stated limiting magnitude of the CCPSP, as well as all stars whose Hipparcos parallax estimates possessed errors greater than 20% of their nominal value (this latter restriction was made in order to insure the reliability of subsequent estimates of Mv). Additionally, stars with M$`{}_{\mathrm{v}}{}^{}<2.0`$ and $`BV>0.90`$ were omitted, as were stars with M$`{}_{\mathrm{v}}{}^{}>7.73`$, in order to restrict the comparison sample to an F, G, and K dwarf subset. This process excluded several subgiant stars from the CCPSP Subsample, but no members of the SWPs cohort. HD 4203, HD 49674, and HD 108874 were also removed as they were added to the CCPSP solely due to their high values of \[Fe/H\]. Lastly, we removed an additional 9 stars for which no additional published spectroscopic or photometric data were available to provide estimates of \[Fe/H\]. In total, this sample (hereafter, the “CCPSP Subsample”) contains 496 stars, 36 of which have been reported by the CCPSP to host RV companions with minimum masses less than 11 MJ.

#### 4.3.1 Metallicities

We calculated values of \[Fe/H\] for the CCPSP Subsample using the previously described photometric recipes of Martell & Laughlin (2002) and Kotoneva et al. (2002), employing the Martell/Laughlin equations for all stars brighter than M$`{}_{\mathrm{v}}{}^{}=5.5`$, and the Kotoneva method for those dimmer. In keeping with our findings of an 0.10 dex offset between these photometric estimates and our spectroscopic results, we added 0.10 dex to the photometric \[Fe/H\] values of all stars in the CCPSP Subsample. Figure 9 presents a histogram of the relative contribution of SWPs to the entire CCPSP Subsample as a function of metallicity. As we have seen in similar analyses by other investigators (Santos et al. 2001a, Santos et al. 2002, Reid 2002), a significantly higher fraction of the metal-rich CCPSP Subsample possess RV companions relative to the more metal-poor stars (although the highest metallicity bin shown does suffer somewhat from low number statistics, as there are only 3 stars in the CCPSP Subsample with such high values of \[Fe/H\]).

#### 4.3.2 Stellar Masses

In order to readily generate mass estimates for the CCPSP Subsample, we performed a multiple linear regression analysis on the Mv, $`BV`$, and \[Fe/H\] data points contained within a Padova isochrone set with a fixed age of 3.98 Gyr and \[Fe/H\] values ranging from $`0.38`$ to $`+0.32`$ dex. This yielded the following equation relating stellar mass, Mv, $`BV`$, and \[Fe/H\]:

$$M/M_{}=1.614370.153824M_\mathrm{v}+0.116028[Fe/H]+0.216553(BV)$$
(2)
We employed equation (2) on the full CCPSP Subsample, and a comparison of the mass values thus generated with those calculated for the same SWPs using the Padova isochrones shows a mean difference of M$`{}_{\mathrm{Spec}.\mathrm{Est}.}{}^{}`$M$`{}_{\mathrm{LinearEst}.}{}^{}=0.01\pm 0.01`$ M, with a standard deviation of 0.09 M. The left panel of Figure 10 presents a histogram distribution of the masses of the CCPSP subsample and the CCPSP SWPs, while the right panel presents the same information as a cumulative frequency distribution. A Kolmogorov-Smirnov analysis of the latter indicates only a $`14\%`$ probability that the two samples were drawn from the same population, suggesting the presence of a mass bias in the detection of SWPs amongst the full CCPSP Subsample.

There are many potential sources for such biases – for example, given the relatively high mean metallicity of SWPs and the tendency for more massive stars to be younger and therefore more metal-rich. It is plausible that there should be a bias favoring the detection of SWPs around more massive stars. However, the orbital velocity of a star harboring a companion is an inverse function of that star’s mass, so that for any given companion mass, a more massive host star will be accelerated less by their mutual gravitational attraction, and thus will have a lower orbital velocity with an accordingly lower variability in its measured doppler signal. More precisely, the velocity amplitude goes as $`K_{\mathrm{SWPs}}M_{\mathrm{SWPs}}^{2/3}`$ (Cumming et al. 1999). Additionally, more massive stars have fewer absorption lines and are more likely to possess higher rotational speeds, with both factors greatly reducing the probability of detecting the doppler signal from a companion (Bouchy et al. 2001).

Figure 11 attempts to address several of these possible concerns. Each panel presents histograms of the relative contribution of CCPSP SWPs to the full CCPSP Subsample as a function of mass (solid line), as well as mean results from Monte-Carlo simulations (dashed line) with $`20,000`$ trial selections of ‘pseudo-SWPs’ samples, each equal in size to the true CCPSP SWPs sample (36 stars). Assuming a Poisson distribution of error in bin membership for the true SWPs, the formal uncertainty in each bin is $`0.04`$, while the standard deviations of the Monte-Carlo distributions are $`0.02`$ for all but the extreme upper and lower mass bins, which suffer from low numbers and have uncertainties of $`0.10`$. Panel (a) presents both distributions with no attempts to correct for any biases; as expected, each bin in the Monte-Carlo distribution contains a $`7`$ percent ‘pseudo-SWPs’ component, in accordance with the overall ratio of SWPs to the full CCPSP Subsample, and the bias suggested by Figure 10 is again evident.

The remaining three panels of Figure 11 consider corrections for possible biases. For panel (b), the true SWPs distribution is the same, but the Monte-Carlo selection process has been altered to force the ‘pseudo-SWPs’ samples to mimic precisely the metallicity distribution observed amongst the true SWPs (i.e., the same number of stars in each metallicity bin). This eliminates from the simulated data those CCPSP stars below 0.7 M, whose metallicities are lower than any of the observed CCPSP SWPs, but also leads to a large overestimation of the contribution of the high mass stars as compared to the true SWPs distribution. This latter result argues strongly against high \[Fe/H\] values as the sole bias in the observed mass function.

Panels (c) and (d) attempt to address the previously mentioned biases against detecting SWPs around higher mass stars. In each case, and for both the observed and simulated data, we compensated for the radial velocity bias by applying a multiplicative correction of M$`{}_{}{}^{2/3}{}_{\mathrm{Stellar}}{}^{}`$ to the frequency of SWPs (or ‘psuedo-SWPs’) in each mass bin, resulting in an increase in the relative contribution of stars greater than 1.0 M and a decrease in those below 1.0 M. We note that though this is theoretically precise, it is probably a somewhat overly strong correction for this effect, as the doppler signals of the observed SWPs have relatively high S/N. However, as we make no effort to compensate for the several additional biases presented against higher mass stars (as they are difficult to directly and reliably quantify as functions of mass), we are confident that this correction as applied offers a reasonable resolution. Panel (c) of Figure 11 presents the mass-bias corrected distributions of both the simulated and observed data, while panel (d) considers both the mass-bias correction as well as the metallicity constraints as applied in panel (b), and therefore represents our best estimate of the ‘true’ mass function.

Evident immediately in all of the plots in Figure 11 is a steep dropoff in the percentage of stars less than 1.0 M harboring known RV companions – only 6 SWPs have been detected from the 148 CCPSP Subsample stars less massive than the sun, while 17 SWPs have been found amongst the 152 stars in the CCPSP Subsample with masses between 1.0 and 1.1 M. The sharp downturns below 0.8 M and above 1.3 M are also suggestive, but as there are only 36 CCPSP stars in the mass bins at these extremes, even a high estimate of a 10% contribution by SWPs would predict only 1 or 2 SWPs at these masses. While we must emphasize that these suggestive results are only marginally statistically significant at this stage, if any of these trends are indicative of the true mass function of SWPs, they provide very strong constraints on models of planetary system formation and evolution, and impact profoundly the possible distribution of SWPs in the Galaxy.

### 4.4 Sources of Trends

Gonzalez (2003) summarizes the three currently debated mechanisms for explaining the high \[Fe/H\] seen among SWPs – the primordial, self-enrichment, and migration hypotheses. The trends seen above in the Galactic orbits of SWPs would seem to support the findings of Barbieri & Gratton (2002) favoring the self-enrichment scenario, but the change in the slope of the metallicity-galactocentric distance relationship does suggest some dependence upon the value of \[Fe/H\], a prediction of the primordial hypothesis. The latter also finds support in the high metallicity of the subgiants HD 27442, HD 38529, and HD 177830, whose outer convection zones should be deep enough to effectively dilute any reasonable amount of self-enrichment. However, the addition here of several SWPs to the metal-poor subset with \[Fe/H\] $`<0.20`$ continues to provide a lower limit to any critical metallicity necessary for planet formation.

Figure 12 presents an analysis of our theoretical and spectroscopic $`\mathrm{log}g`$ values. This offers a possible insight into the self-enrichment scenario, given that a star with an enriched outer convection layer will have a more metal-poor interior than estimated spectroscopically. This results in a lower mass (and therefore $`\mathrm{log}g`$) estimate than that given by evolutionary models for a star whose outer atmosphere shares the metal abundance of its interior (Ford et al. 1999). While this effect is small and difficult to reliably detect at the current level of resolution444An 0.2 dex enhancement in \[Fe/H\] in the convection layer of 51 Peg, for example, would yield only an 0.05 dex offset in $`\mathrm{log}g`$., we note that our spectroscopic $`\mathrm{log}g`$ estimates are found to be on average higher than our theoretical$`\mathrm{log}g`$ estimates, in contradiction to this simple model.

The possible trends with SWPs mass seen in Figures 10 and 11 suggest the hypothesis that large, relatively close-orbiting planets may be preferentially found around more massive stars. However, some of this observed distribution of SWPs with stellar mass may be a reflection of the increased probability of finding SWPs orbiting stars with higher \[Fe/H\], as higher mass stars are on average younger, and therefore generally more metal-rich than lower mass stars. We explore this degeneracy in Figure 13, which presents \[Fe/H\] as a function of mass for both the full CCPSP Subsample and the subset of CCPSP SWPs. We note that the most metal-rich SWPs are found just above 1.0 M, not amongst the SWPs with the highest masses, and that there are large numbers of metal-rich, higher mass stars not in the SWPs subset. These points qualitatively argue against metallicity being the sole cause for the observed mass trend; more thorough statistical examinations of the data set as it grows should be performed to properly determine the level to which these two stellar properties bias each other.

If there is in fact a mass dependence on the likelihood of possessing a planetary companion, there are many potential avenues of inquiry to be explored – are massive stars perhaps more likely to suffer the effects of planetary migration via interactions with a more massive disk, or perhaps to directly form through disk instabilities giant planets in $`<5`$ AU orbits? Or are they simply more likely to form more massive, more easily detected planets, or perhaps more planets in general? Answers to these questions will most likely be found via continued searches for planets around stars of various masses, but with similar ages, metallicities, and environmental histories, such as the study of the Hyades by Cochran et al. (2002). The rapidly developing field of modelling planetary system formation may also yield insight into the underlying physical causes of the observed mass trend. Given its potential to powerfully constrain theories of planetary system evolution as well as the overall distribution of SWPs in our Galaxy, we strongly urge research groups to follow up on this preliminary and potentially critical finding.

## 5 Conclusions and Implications

In this paper we have presented new spectroscopic analyses of 31 SWPs, including 25 SWPs which had not been previously examined in the context of our “Stars-with-Planets” series of papers. Where overlap exists with other, similar research, we find very good agreement between our results on the basic stellar parameters of $`T_{\mathrm{eff}}`$, $`\mathrm{log}g`$, and \[Fe/H\]. We further utilized our spectroscopic data and the Padova isochrone set to derive ages, masses, and theoretical $`\mathrm{log}g`$ values for all of the SWPs examined in our series of papers. These data revealed a number of very interesting and unusual stars, including four “red stragglers”: HD 6434, HD 37124, HD 46375, and HD 168746. HD 46375 is particularly unusual, in that it shows evidence of being both very old and very metal-rich. We recommend that these stars be the targets of detailed studies to determine the source(s) of their abberant physical characteristics.

When we combine the results here with that of our previous work and those of other very similar spectroscopic studies, we find a preponderance of evidence supporting the hypothesis that SWPs are preferentially metal-rich compared to control samples of field stars, as first proposed in Paper I, and additionally confirmed by numerous research efforts (Paper VI, Santos et al. 2001a, Santos et al. 2002, Reid 2002). This observed enhancement in \[Fe/H\] over similar nearby stars is seen at all Galactic radii amongst a subsample of young SWPs, a prediction of the self-enrichment model, but also appears to show some dependence on base metallicity, a feature of the primordial model (and arguably the migration model as well). No strong evidence was found linking stellar \[Fe/H\] to planetary characteristics, however, and a proposed test of the self-enrichment model via discrepancies in determinations of $`\mathrm{log}g`$ measured through direct spectroscopy and by application of stellar evolutionary models were found to be largely inconclusive. While it is almost certainly the case that there is some minimum primordial metallicity necessary for the formation of a planetary system, and that once formed any planetary system will almost certainly enrich its host star with metals, the degree to which either of these is responsible for the observed metal-rich nature of SWPs remains in question. Pinsonneault et al. (2001) and Santos et al. (2002) provide compelling evidence against widespread self-pollution as the source of the high mean metallicity of SWPs, while Gratton et al. (2001), Murray & Chaboyer (2002), Smith et al. (2002), and Laws & Gonzalez (2001) offer similarly significant evidence supporting non-negligible levels of self-pollution.

Finally, we used a multiple linear regression method and data from Padova isochrones to estimate masses for 496 stars currently targeted for doppler studies by the California & Carnegie Planet Search Program, employing slight recalibrations to the recent photometric studies of Martell & Laughlin (2002) and Kotoneva et al. (2002) to derive necessary \[Fe/H\] values. A comparison of this sample with the subset of known SWPs within this group demonstrated both the (expected) trend towards more frequent occurrence of SWPs amongst high metallicity stars, as well as a somewhat increased probability of detection of RV companions in orbit around more massive stars. While this last finding is highly tentative and marginal in its statistical significance, its ramifications are broad and deep. If our results are in fact indicative of the underlying mass function of SWPs, then this strongly constrains models of planetary system formation to prescriptions which preferentially populate stars of higher mass with planets typical of those being discovered by current doppler surveys. Whether the deficit of giant planets around low mass stars is the result of a real physical effect or an artifact of the metallicity trend, the implications for the total number of SWPs in the Galaxy are similar. Given the fact that the overwhelming majority of stars in our Galaxy are less massive than the sun, any tendency for such stars to be without large planetary companions has a profound impact on the total number of planets in our Galaxy. Were it to be the case, as suggested in Wetherill (1994) that such large worlds are necessary for the development of intelligent life in a planetary system, then a lack of these giants around the most common stars in most galaxies may have important implications on estimates of the number of possible harbors of civilizations in the universe.

We would like to thank Kevin Covey for his work on software that greatly aided this analysis, and Tammy Ann Baker Laws for assistance in the preparation of tables. This research has made use of the Simbad database, operated at CDS, Strasbourg, France, as well as Jean Schneider’s, Geoff Marcy’s, and the Geneva Research Group’s extrasolar planets web pages. This work has been supported by a the University of Washington Astrobiology Program and a grant from the National Astrobiology Institute. Additionaly, Sudhi Tyagi was supported by the Space Grant Program at the University of Washington, and Kyle M. Walker was supported by a Research Experience for Undergraduates grant from Iowa State University.

## 6 FIGURE CAPTIONS


format: text

text:
# 1 Introduction

## 1 Introduction

It was recognized long ago  that the interactions of virtual photons at high-energies and low virtualities are governed by nonlinear evolution. Over the years, different theoretical methods of calculating processes in the kinematical region of high-density QCD (hdQCD) have been proposed , leading to the construction of an equation, which incorporates both linear evolution due to parton splitting, and nonlinear evolution due to the recombination of partons at high-density. This equation is given in Eq. (2) below, using the notations of , for $`\stackrel{~}{N}(r_{},x;b)`$, the imaginary part of the amplitude of a dipole of size $`r_{}`$, which scatters elastically at impact parameter $`b`$.

In this paper we extend our recent investigations  of the nonlinear evolution to vector mesons, focusing on $`J/\psi `$ photo  and DIS  production. As this process is characterized by a scale of the order of the charmed quark mass, $`m_c`$, it is considered a primary candidate for investigating the kinematical region of QCD on the boundary between perturbative and hdQCD.

In our previous publications  we demonstrated that the cross section experimental data for $`J/\psi `$ production is well reproduced if one employs two damping factors, calculated using a Glauber like shadowing-correction (SC) formalism . Broadly speaking, each damping factor may be considered as one iteration in an iterative procedure for determining $`\stackrel{~}{N}(r_{},x;b)`$. These iterations correspond to Glauber rescatterings where the first iteration is attributed to SC due to the passage of a dipole through the target, and the second iteration is attributed to one small $`x`$ gluon emitted by the dipole prior to the interaction. We believe that the SC formalism was, at the time, an important preliminary step towards the more rigorous treatment of .

A particular outcome of , is that the $`J/\psi `$ experimental data for the forward differential cross section slope, $`B`$, can be well reproduced by assuming that the profile function in the impact parameter space is the Fourier transform of an electromagnetic dipole-like form factor. Our numerical calculations of $`B`$ produced a satisfactory fit to the experimental data with a hadron radius $`R^2=10\text{GeV}^2`$. On the other hand, in , a good fit to the $`F_2`$ data was obtained with $`R^2=3.1\text{GeV}^2`$ for an exponential form factor, and $`R^2=4.5\text{GeV}^2`$, for a dipole-like form factor. We consider the radii in  as effective radii which are reduced due to (i) the presence of inelastic diffractive processes; and (ii) the observation that in the simple expression typically used for $`\sigma _{\text{dipole}}`$, the dipole-proton cross section, a small anomalous dimension has been assumed. As we shall see, when calculating the cross section for $`J/\psi `$ production, it is necessary to include an effective $`b`$-dependence, which we choose to extract from the HERA experimental data.

This paper is organized as follows: in section 2 we briefly review the nonlinear equation and the approximate numerical solution to it, as obtained in ; in section 3 we calculate the integrated cross section for $`J/\psi `$ photo- and DIS- production, and compare to the relevant experimental data; in section 4 we present our predictions for the production of $`J/\psi `$ from scattering of electrons on heavy nuclei. Our summary and conclusions are given in section 5.

## 2 The Dipole Scattering Amplitude

The imaginary part of the dipole scattering amplitude, $`\stackrel{~}{N}`$, is a solution of a nonlinear evolution equation, which characterizes the low $`x`$ behavior of the parton densities, while taking into account hdQCD effects, thereby obeying the unitarity constraints. The equation describes the interaction with a target of a parent dipole, of size $`𝐱_{01}`$, and of two dipoles, of sizes $`𝐱_{12}`$ and $`𝐱_{02}`$, which were produced by the dipole of size $`𝐱_{01}`$. The probability for the decay of the dipole of size $`𝐱_{01}`$ is given by the square of its wave function, which, in a simplified form, can be written as $`x_{01}^2/x_{02}^2x_{12}^2`$.

Each of the produced dipoles can interact with the target independently, with respective amplitudes of $`\stackrel{~}{N}(𝐱_{12},y;𝐛\frac{1}{2}𝐱_{02})`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{N}(𝐱_{02},y;𝐛\frac{1}{2}𝐱_{12})`$, where $`y`$ denotes the rapidity variable and $`b`$ the impact parameter. However, adding these contributions clearly overestimates the dipole-nucleon interaction, since one must consider the probability that during the interaction, one dipole is in the shadow of the other. This negative correction factor is given by $`\stackrel{~}{N}(𝐱_{12},y;𝐛\frac{1}{2}𝐱_{02})\stackrel{~}{N}(𝐱_{02},y;𝐛\frac{1}{2}𝐱_{12})`$.

Thus, $`\stackrel{~}{N}`$ can be written in the form

$`\stackrel{~}{N}(𝐱_{\mathrm{𝟎𝟏}},Y;b)=\stackrel{~}{N}(𝐱_{\mathrm{𝟎𝟏}},Y_0;b)\mathrm{exp}\left[{\displaystyle \frac{2C_F\alpha _\mathrm{s}}{\pi }}\mathrm{ln}\left({\displaystyle \frac{𝐱_{\mathrm{𝟎𝟏}}^\mathrm{𝟐}}{\rho ^2}}\right)(YY_0)\right]+`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{C_F\alpha _\mathrm{s}}{\pi ^2}}{\displaystyle _{Y_0}^Y}dy\mathrm{exp}[{\displaystyle \frac{2C_F\alpha _\mathrm{s}}{\pi }}\mathrm{ln}\left({\displaystyle \frac{𝐱_{\mathrm{𝟎𝟏}}^\mathrm{𝟐}}{\rho ^2}}\right)(Yy)]\times `$
$`{\displaystyle _\rho }d^2𝐱_\mathrm{𝟐}{\displaystyle \frac{𝐱_{\mathrm{𝟎𝟏}}^\mathrm{𝟐}}{𝐱_{\mathrm{𝟎𝟐}}^\mathrm{𝟐}𝐱_{\mathrm{𝟏𝟐}}^\mathrm{𝟐}}}\left(\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}\stackrel{~}{N}(𝐱_{\mathrm{𝟎𝟐}},y;𝐛{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{𝟏}}{\mathrm{𝟐}}}𝐱_{\mathrm{𝟏𝟐}})\stackrel{~}{N}(𝐱_{\mathrm{𝟎𝟐}},y;𝐛{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{𝟏}}{\mathrm{𝟐}}}𝐱_{\mathrm{𝟏𝟐}})\stackrel{~}{N}(𝐱_{\mathrm{𝟏𝟐}},y;𝐛{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{𝟏}}{\mathrm{𝟐}}}𝐱_{\mathrm{𝟎𝟐}})\right),`$
where, $`Y=\mathrm{ln}x`$, $`Y_0=\mathrm{ln}x_0`$ and $`\rho `$ is an ultraviolet cutoff, which does not appear in the physical quantities.

The linear part of (2) is the LO BFKL equation , which describes the evolution of the multiplicity of the fixed size color dipoles as a function of the energy $`Y`$. The equation sums the high twist contributions. Note, that the linear part of (2) also has higher twist contributions and the main contribution of the nonlinear part is to the leading twist (see  for general arguments and  for explicit calculations).

For completeness, we provide a brief description of the steps taken in  for obtaining an approximate solution for $`\stackrel{~}{N}(𝐱_{\mathrm{𝟎𝟏}},Y;b)`$.

The initial conditions for (2) were taken at $`x_0=10^2`$ in the eikonal approximation, accounting for multiple dipole-target interactions:

$$\stackrel{~}{N}(𝐱_{01},x_0;b)=\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}1}e^{\frac{1}{2}\sigma _{\text{input}}(𝐱_{01},x_0)S(b)},$$
(2)
where

$$\sigma _{\text{input}}(𝐱_{01},x_0)=\frac{\alpha _s\pi ^2}{N_c}x_{01}^2xG^{\text{DGLAP}}(x_0,4/x_{01}^2),$$
(3)
and $`S(b)`$ is the profile function in impact parameter space. As stated, we found that the experimental data of the differential cross section slope, $`B`$, is well described by the following profile function, which is the Fourier transform of electromagnetic dipole-like form factor:

$$S(b)=\frac{2}{\pi R^2}\frac{\sqrt{8}b}{R}K_1(\frac{\sqrt{8}b}{R}).$$
(4)
As a first step, the $`b`$-dependence of (2) was neglected. Thus, all twist contributions for the evolution were summed, using the initial condition (2) at $`b=0`$. Then, once an approximate solution was obtained, the $`b`$ dependence is restored, assuming similar $`b`$-dependences for both the solution and the initial conditions. Specifically, the following ansatz was used for the $`b`$-dependence of $`\stackrel{~}{N}`$:

$$\stackrel{~}{N}(r_{},x;b)=(1e^{\kappa (x,r_{})S(b)/S(0)}),$$
(5)
where

$$\kappa (x,r_{})=\mathrm{ln}(1\stackrel{~}{N}(r_{},x,b=0)).$$
(6)
## 3 Cross section for $`J/\psi `$ production

The cross section for $`J/\psi `$ production is given by:

$$\sigma (\gamma ^{}pVp)=d^2b\left|𝑑zd^2r_{}\mathrm{\Psi }_\gamma ^{}(r_{},z,Q^2)𝒜(r_{},x;b)\mathrm{\Psi }_V(r_{},z)\right|^2,$$
(7)
where $`𝒜(r_{},x;b)`$ is the imaginary part of the production amplitude in impact parameter space, and $`\mathrm{\Psi }_V`$ and $`\mathrm{\Psi }_\gamma ^{}`$ are, respectively, the wave functions of the $`J/\psi `$ and the virtual photon. Formally speaking $`\mathrm{\Psi }_V`$ should depend on $`b`$. However, as the dominant contribition of the $`J/\psi `$ wave function comes from short distances, this dependence is neglected. The evaluation of (7) is done by first performing the polarization summation of the $`J/\psi `$-photon overlap function,$`\mathrm{\Psi }_V\times \mathrm{\Psi }_\gamma ^{}`$. This overlap function can be derived in the $`r_{}`$ representation using the spin structures of the vector meson wave function  and the well-known photon wave function .

A detailed analysis of the overlap function has already been made in , where it was found that, in the momentum representaion, the overlap function for transverse (T) and longitudinal (L) polarized photon is given by :

$$\mathrm{\Psi }_V(k_{},z)\times \mathrm{\Psi }_{\gamma ^{},T}(k_{},z)\frac{2(z^2+(1z)^2)k_{}^2a^2+m_c^2(a^2k_{}^2)}{m_c(a^2+k_{}^2)^3}\mathrm{\Psi }_V(k_{},z),$$
(8)
$$\mathrm{\Psi }_V(k_{},z)\times \mathrm{\Psi }_{\gamma ^{},L}(k_{},z)\frac{2z(1z)Q(a^2k_{}^2)}{(a^2+k_{}^2)^3}\mathrm{\Psi }_V(k_{},z),$$
(9)
with $`a^2=z(1z)Q^2+m_c^2`$. Here $`\times `$ denotes the polarization and helicity summation. For a given $`J/\psi `$ spatial distribution, the transformation to configuration space is straightforward and is given in Eqs. (10)–(11) below. Although many models exist for the spatial distributions of vector mesons (see for example, ), we choose to approximate $`\mathrm{\Psi }_V(r_{},z)`$ to be $`\mathrm{\Psi }_V(r_{}=0,z=\frac{1}{2})`$. As in our previous publications , we consider below a deviation from this approximation due to relativistic effects, produced by the Fermi motion of the bound quarks within the vector meson.

The effect of this motion, however, strongly depends on the charmed quark mass, $`m_c`$. If one assumes, for example, that $`m_c=M_\psi /21.55\text{GeV}`$, then, by definition, there is no correction due to Fermi motion. On the other hand, in , it has been assumed that $`m_c1.50\text{GeV}`$, and a suppression factor of the cross section of about $`0.25`$ was obtained, with almost no energy dependence. Hence, as it stands, the contribution of this effect lies within a substantial range of uncertainty in which $`m_c`$ varies by no more than $`0.05\text{GeV}`$.

We, therefore, consider the effect of Fermi motion as an uncertainty of the wave function normalization, introducing it as an overall (energy-independent) suppression factor, $`K_F`$, which we use as a fitting parameter. Using the above approximation we Fourier transform Eqs. (8) and (9) and obtain:

$`\mathrm{\Psi }_V(r_{}=0,z=\frac{1}{2})\times \mathrm{\Psi }_{\gamma ^{},T}(r_{};Q^2)={\displaystyle \frac{K_F}{48\alpha _{\mathrm{em}}}}\sqrt{{\displaystyle \frac{3\mathrm{\Gamma }_{ee}M_\psi }{\pi }}}\times `$ (10)
$`\left\{{\displaystyle \frac{a^2}{m_c}}\left(\zeta K_1(\zeta ){\displaystyle \frac{\zeta ^2}{4}}K_2(\zeta )\right)+m_c\left({\displaystyle \frac{\zeta ^2}{2}}K_2(\zeta )\zeta K_1(\zeta )\right)\right\}`$
$$\mathrm{\Psi }_V(r_{}=0,z=\frac{1}{2})\times \mathrm{\Psi }_{\gamma ^{},L}(r_{};Q^2)=\frac{K_F}{48\alpha _{\mathrm{em}}}\sqrt{\frac{3\mathrm{\Gamma }_{ee}M_\psi }{\pi }}\frac{Q}{2}\left(\frac{\zeta ^2}{2}K_2(\zeta )\zeta K_1(\zeta )\right).$$
(11)
where $`\zeta =ar_{}`$, $`K_i,i=1,2`$ are the modified Bessel functions and $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{ee}=5.26\text{KeV}`$ is the leptonic width of the $`J/\psi `$.

Before presenting our results for the cross section (7), we discuss the impact parameter dependence of the production amplitude, $`𝒜`$. At first sight, $`𝒜(r_{},x;b)`$ equals $`\stackrel{~}{N}(r_{},x;b)`$ where its $`b`$-dependence is related to the solution of Eq. (2) at $`b=0`$ through the ansatz of Eq. (5). The parameter $`R`$ in $`S(b)`$ \[see Eq. (4)\] is related to the hadron size and has already been determined in  by fitting $`\stackrel{~}{N}`$ to the experimental data of $`F_2`$. However, as stated in the introduction, a good fit to $`F_2`$ was obtained using a relatively small value of $`R^2=4.5\text{GeV}^2`$, whereas we know that the the measured $`J/\psi `$ differential slope, $`B`$, is consistent with a radius which is more than twice larger.

Hence, it turns out that $`𝒜`$ differs from $`\stackrel{~}{N}`$. The correct $`b`$-dependence of $`𝒜`$ is given by the following expression:

$$𝒜(r_{},x;b)=d^2b^{}\stackrel{~}{N}(r_{},x;b^{})S^{}(bb^{}).$$
(12)
To understand Eq. (12) we need to recall the procedure for calculating the total cross section for the deep inelastic process which is shown in Fig. 1. If one uses the specific model in which the proton consists of two colour dipoles (see Refs.  for details), the total deep inelastic cross section is given solely by the scattering amplitude of one particular dipole present in the proton target. More specifically, as there is no momentum transfer which is involved in the process, the total cross section does not depend on the probability of finding a second (spectator) dipole in the target.

On the other hand, in the process of $`J/\psi `$ production, the momentum transfer, $`q`$, is not zero (see Fig. 2). In this process, for fixed momentum transfer, the $`t=q^2`$ dependence of the $`J/\psi `$ production relates both to $`\stackrel{~}{N}(r_{},x;q)`$ (the amplitude for the photon to scatter off one dipole) and to the probability to find the second dipole having a momentum $`q`$ inside of the recoiled proton. Denoting this probability by $`S^{}(q)`$, the production amplitude is thus proportional to $`\stackrel{~}{N}(r_{},x;q)S^{}(q)`$. A product in momentum representation is equivalent to a convolution in the impact parameter, hence the form of Eq. (12).

Actually, we can estimate $`S^{}(q)`$ using the Born approximation for the scatttering amplitude shown in the diagram of Fig. 3. Assuming a simple factorized form of the proton wave function,

$$\mathrm{\Psi }_{\text{proton}}(r_{},\rho _{})=\varphi (r_{})\varphi (\rho _{})$$
(13)
where $`\rho _{}=r_{1,}r_{2,}`$ and $`r_{}=r_{3,}(r_{1,}+r_{2,})/2`$, we can easily calculate $`S^{}(q)`$

$$S^{}(q)=d^2r_{}\left|\varphi (r_{})\right|^2e^{i\frac{1}{3}\stackrel{}{q}\stackrel{}{r_{}}}$$
(14)
Comparing Eq. (14) with the expression for the electromagnetic form factor for proton

$$F(q)=d^2r_{}\left|\varphi (r_{})\right|^2e^{i\frac{2}{3}\stackrel{}{q}\stackrel{}{r_{}}}$$
(15)
one can see that $`S^{}(b)`$ can be described by Eq. (4) with $`R=R_{\text{proton}}/2`$, where $`R_{\text{proton}}`$ is the electromagnetic radius of proton.

Alternatively, we can choose a different strategy and extract the typical size for the profile function $`S^{}(b)`$ using the experimental data. Generally, the differential slope is related to the average of the square of impact parameter, weighted by the the dipole-proton cross section. The correct averaging procedure would be to integrate both over the impact parameter and over the dipole size, thereby reconstructing the energy dependence of $`B`$ (the shrinkage of the diffraction peak):

$$B(x)=\frac{1}{2}b^2=\frac{d^2r_{}b^2d^2b\stackrel{~}{N}(r_{},x,b)}{2d^2r_{}d^2b\stackrel{~}{N}(r_{},x,b)}.$$
(16)
The value of $`B`$ as obtained from (16) is, of course, not universal for all processes, and it directly depends on the choice of $`S(b)`$. For the purpose of calculating the effective radius to be used in $`S^{}(b)`$, we define the deviation of $`\frac{1}{2}b^2`$ from the measured slope to be:

$$B^{}=B_{\text{exp}}\frac{1}{2}b^2,$$
(17)
where, $`B_{\text{exp}}`$ is taken from experimental data (see, e.g., ). $`S^{}(b)`$ is then calculated from Eq. (4) with the substitution $`RR^{}=2B^{}`$.

The resulting $`b`$-dependence of $`𝒜(x;b)d^2r_{}𝒜(r_{},x;b)\mathrm{\Psi }_\gamma (r_{})\mathrm{\Psi }_V`$ are shown in Fig. 4. The convolution of $`S^{}(b)`$ with $`\stackrel{~}{N}(r_{},x;b^{})`$ is realized by a shift in the maximum of the scattering amplitude in the impact parameter space. The decrease of the amplitude in the low $`b`$ region may be understood as a signature of shadowing corrections needed to insure unitarity.

Our calculations of $`\sigma (\gamma ^{}pJ/\psi )`$ were basically in accordance with Eq. (7), with modifications due to the contribution from the real part of the production amplitude  and the skewed (off diagonal) gluon distribution . The contribution of the real part is given by:

$$C_R^2=(1+\rho ^2),$$
(18)
where,

$$\rho =Re𝒜/Im𝒜=tg(\frac{\pi \lambda }{2})$$
(19)
and, in our approach,

$$\lambda =\mathrm{ln}(\stackrel{~}{N})/\mathrm{ln}(\frac{1}{x}).$$
(20)
Note that with this definition of $`\lambda `$, its value obeys the unitarity constraint according to which, at a fixed value of $`Q^2`$, $`\lambda `$ is a decreasing function of the energy with $`\lambda 0`$ as $`x0`$ .

The off diagonal contribution is given by:

$$C_G^2=\left(\frac{2^{2\lambda +3}\mathrm{\Gamma }(\lambda +\frac{5}{2})}{\sqrt{\pi }\mathrm{\Gamma }(\lambda +4)}\right)^2.$$
(21)
Formally, the definition (20) of $`\lambda `$ is $`r_{}`$-dependent. In practice, the corrections due the $`r_{}`$-dependence of $`\lambda `$ are rather small. Thus, $`\lambda `$ is computed at fixed scale $`r_{}^2=4/(Q^2+M_{J/\psi }^2)`$.

The results of our calculations of Eq. (7), given the above modifications, are shown in Fig. 5 for $`J/\psi `$ photoproduction, where we define $`x=M_{J/\psi }^2/W^2`$. We found that the H1 data  are compatible with $`K_F=0.6`$ ($`\chi ^2/\text{n.d.f.}=0.5`$) while the ZEUS data require $`K_F=0.76`$ ($`\chi ^2/\text{n.d.f.}=0.6`$). As stated, the factor $`K_F`$ is the deviation of our approximation for the $`J/\psi `$ static potential wave function from a more realistic model, in which the spatial distribution of $`J/\psi `$ depends on $`r_{}`$ and $`z`$. Our results are consistent with , where a comparison between a realsitic and static $`J/\psi `$ wave functions was made.

The values of $`K_F`$ which were obtained for $`Q^2=0`$, were used to predict the cross section for $`Q^2>0`$. In Fig. 6 we compare the $`Q^2>0`$ predictions to the preliminary data which were read off plots in . Within the experimental errors, our reproduction of the data is good, except for data at $`Q^2=16\text{GeV}^2`$ where we underestimate the H1 point ($`W80\text{GeV}`$) and one of the ZEUS points ($`W180\text{GeV}`$). In spite of this, the overall $`\chi ^2/\text{n.d.f.}`$ for photoproduction and DIS data (including these two problematic points) is 0.73 for ZEUS and 0.84 for H1.

## 4 Predictions for Heavy Nuclei

In this section we assess the unitarity effects in $`J/\psi `$ coherent production in photo and DIS on a nuclear target. In such processes, unitarity effects are more pronounced than in $`ep`$ collisions. Thus, with nuclear targets one can access the region of hdQCD at values of $`x`$ which are larger than those characterizing this region at HERA experiments.

The production of vector mesons on a nuclear target can be calculated in a straightforward manner using methods similar to the above. In principle, (2) can be solved separately for each atomic number $`A`$, with the same form of initial conditions. To this end we choose to present our predictions using the Glauber approach, and for the time being to postpone the solution of (2) for nuclei.

In the Glauber approach, the cross-section for the $`J/\psi `$ production, including contributions for the percolation through a nucleus of both a $`|q\overline{q}`$ system and a $`|q\overline{q}g`$ system, is given by the following expression:

$`\sigma (\gamma ^{}AJ/\psi A)={\displaystyle }d^2b|{\displaystyle }dzd^2r_{}\mathrm{\Psi }_\gamma ^{}(r_{},z,Q^2)\mathrm{\Psi }_{J/\psi }(r_{},z)\times `$
$`[(1e^{{\scriptscriptstyle \frac{1}{2}}\mathrm{\Omega }_q})+{\displaystyle \frac{C_F}{\pi ^2}}\alpha _\mathrm{s}r_{}^2{\displaystyle }{\displaystyle \frac{dx}{x}}{\displaystyle _{r_{}^{}>r_{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{d^2r_{}^{}}{r_{}^4}}(1e^{{\scriptscriptstyle \frac{1}{2}}\mathrm{\Omega }_g})]|^2,`$ (22)
where the opacities $`\mathrm{\Omega }_q`$ and $`\mathrm{\Omega }_g`$ are defined as:

$`\mathrm{\Omega }_q(b,r_{},x)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\pi ^2}{3}}r_{}^2\alpha _\mathrm{s}\left({\displaystyle \frac{4}{r_{}^2}}\right)xG(x,{\displaystyle \frac{4}{r_{}^2}})S_A(b),`$ (23)
$`\mathrm{\Omega }_g(b,r_{},x)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{9}{4}}\mathrm{\Omega }_q(b,r_{},x),`$ (24)
$`S_A(b)`$ is the number of nucleons in a nucleus interacting with the incoming dipole and $`xG`$ is the gluon density obtained from linear DGLAP evolution (we used CTEQ parameterization  for this particular computation).

We are cognisant of the fact that when dealing with heavy nuclei interactions, neither a dipole nor a Gaussian are adequate for $`S_A(b)`$. When the probing hadronic system percolates through a heavy nucleus, it experiences multiple rescatterings over a substantially long region of the impact parameter space. On the other hand, once the system leaves the heavy nuclei, the number of strong interactions decreases rapidly.

Our approach is to use the Wood-Saxon parameterization  for the impact parameter dependence, $`S_A(b)`$:

$$S_A(b)=\rho \frac{dr_{||}}{1+e^{\frac{rR_A}{h}}}$$
(25)
where $`r_{||}`$ is the longitudinal distance from the target, $`h`$ and $`R_A`$ are parameters which are taken from experimental tables , $`r=\sqrt{r_{||}^2+b^2}`$ and the normalization factor $`\rho `$ is defined in the following relation:

$$\rho \frac{dr_{||}d^2b}{1+e^{\frac{rR_A}{h}}}=A.$$
(26)
Note that $`R_A`$ is associated with the radius of a nucleus with atomic number $`A`$.

To determine the variance between nuclei targets and a nucleon target, we need to examine the $`A`$ dependence of the integrated cross section, by comparing the calculated cross section to a power behaviour of $`\sigma A^\delta `$. The maximal value of the exponent, $`\delta _{max}`$, depends on the profile function $`S_A(b)`$, and can be found from the following integral:

$$A^{\delta _{max}}=d^2b\left|S_A(b)\right|^2$$
(27)
For an exponential profile, $`\delta _{max}=\frac{4}{3}`$ and for a Wood-Saxon profile of (25), $`\delta _{max}1.43`$. A deviation from the maximal value of $`\delta `$ would be a clear signature of saturation of the growth of the cross section. Fig. 7a shows the cross section as a function of $`A`$ with an arbitrary normalization, for $`x=10^5,10^4`$ and $`10^3`$. To illustrate the saturation effect, we compare the curves to a power behavior of $`\sigma A^{4/3}`$. Unitarity conserving effects are already appreciable at $`x=10^3`$.

Eq. (4) takes into account the interaction of the quark-antiquark pair and the fastest gluon. On the other hand, we can improve our Glauber approach by using the solution of the non-linear equation, since the solution to the non-linear equation takes into account all possible interactions of partons with the nucleon target. As stated, $`R_p^2`$, the effective radius of nucleon turns out,in our approach, to be very small. With such a small radius, the typical parameter that governs the dipole interaction with the nuclear target is also very small, namely,

$$R_p^2S_A(0)\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}\hspace{0.17em}1}.$$
(28)
In the standard approach, however, $`R_p^2S_A(0)`$ was considered to be large. We thus have to take into account all rescatterings inside the proton in the first stage of our approach and treat the interactions with different nucleons in a nucleus using the Glauber formula.

Specifically, the cross section can be written in the form:

$`\sigma (\gamma ^{}AJ/\psi A)=`$ (29)
$`{\displaystyle d^2b\left|𝑑zd^2r_{}\mathrm{\Psi }_\gamma ^{}(r_{},z,Q^2)\mathrm{\Psi }_{J/\psi }(r_{},z)\left(1e^{\frac{1}{2}\sigma (dipolenucleon)S_A(b)}\right)\right|^2}`$
where $`\sigma (dipolenucleon)`$ is equal to $`2d^2bN(r^2,x;b)`$ where $`N`$ is dipole-nucleon amplitude.

The following figures illustrate the effect of the inclusion of all rescatterings. Fig. 7b shows the cross section of Eq. (29) as a function of $`A`$ with an arbitrary normalization, for $`x=10^5,10^4`$ and $`10^3`$.

In Fig. 7c we display the characteristic exponent, $`\delta `$, as a function of $`x`$, for the calculated cross-sections of Eqs. (4) and (29). The upper curve in Fig. 7c corresponds to the numerical calculation of Eq. (29) and the lower curve corresponds to Eq. (4). In terms of $`\delta `$, the differences between the two approaches are negligible. On the other hand, as further detailed below, there is a considerable normalization difference.

To investigate the normalization difference, we define the following ratio:

$$=\frac{\text{Eq.\hspace{0.25em}(}\text{29}\text{)}}{\text{Eq.\hspace{0.25em}(}\text{4}\text{)}}$$
(30)
We have calculated $``$ for $`J/\psi `$ photoproduction on a Gold target ($`A200`$). The results, as a function of the energy, for several values of $`Q^2`$, are shown in Fig. 7d. Our calculations show that the full calculation is suppressed by a factor of about 0.4 with respect to the calculation in which only a $`|q\overline{q}`$ and a $`|q\overline{q}g`$ systems are considered to interact with the nucleus.

Our prediction for the energy dependence for $`J/\psi `$ production on a Gold target, in the calculation which includes all parton interactions is shown in Fig. 8 for several values of $`Q^2`$. In this figure, we have used the wave function normalization which we have extracted from the data on proton target. Due to the uncertainty of this normalization, and to the 0.4 ratio of Eq. (30),our rough estimation of the relative errors of the curves are of the order of 15-20% .

## 5 Summary

We have extended our recent investigation of the approximate solution of the nonlinear evolution equation to the case of $`J/\psi `$ photo- and DIS production. We have convoluted our previous ansatz for the $`b`$-dependence of the amplitude with an additional profile which is extracted from the electromagnetic form factor. The resulting impact parameter dependence of the amplitude exhibits a decrease near $`b=0`$. We believe that this decrease is due to the deviation from the linear evolution equations, and is a signature for the onset of unitarity taming effects.

We have used the solution to the NLE and obtained a satisfactory reproduction of both the photo- and the DIS production data. Our free parameter was the uncertainty in the $`J/\psi `$ wave function normalization due to Fermi motion of the $`c\overline{c}`$ pair. In addition, we took into account modifications of the cross section due to the real part of the amplitude and the existence of skewed gluons within the nucleon.

We used the Glauber approach to calculate the cross section for $`J/\psi `$ production on a nuclear target. Our predictions demonstrate that such processes are important for the understanding of unitarity taming effects. We have found that these effects start to dominate for $`x10^3`$. Hence, the predictions presented here may be verified with the future eRHIC experiments.

It is important to note that, apart from the uncertainities due to vector meson wave function, the calculations on nuclei do not contain any fitting parameters. More specifically the uncertainity due to $`b`$ dependence of the solution for nuclei is quite small. In other words, the initial conditions for the BK equation  are determined solely by the proton DIS data.

## Acknowledgments

This paper is dedicated to our friend and colleague Jan Kwiecinski on the occasion of his sixty-fifth birthday, may he continue to be active and contribute for many years to come.

Two of us (E.G. and E.L.) thank the DESY Theory Division for their hospitality. This research was supported in part by GIF grant $`\mathrm{\#}`$ I-620-22.14/1999 and by Israeli Science Foundation, founded by the Israeli Academy of Science and Humanities.


text:
# The essential ideal in group cohomology does not square to zero

## 1 Introduction

Let $`G`$ be a finite group and $`k`$ a field of characteristic $`p`$. A class $`x`$ in the cohomology ring $`H^{}(G,k)`$ is called essential if its restriction to every proper subgroup is zero. Standard properties of the transfer mean that $`G`$ has to be a $`p`$-group if there are to be nonzero essential classes.

The essential classes in $`H^{}(G,k)`$ form an ideal, called the essential ideal $`\mathrm{Ess}(G)`$. If the group $`G`$ is elementary abelian, then there is a non-nilpotent essential class: the product of the Bocksteins of all nonzero elements of $`H^1`$. But in all remaining cases that could be calculated, the pattern that emerged seemed to be that every product of essential classes was zero. This led H. Mui and T. Marx to formulate the following

* () Let $`G`$ be a finite $`p`$-group which is not elementary abelian. Then $`\mathrm{Ess}(G)^2=0`$.

The evidence for the Essential Conjecture consists of a wealth of worked examples, together with one result which is valid for all finite groups: Minh showed in  that if $`x`$ is essential then $`x^p=0`$ (assuming $`G`$ is not elementary abelian).

The Essential Conjecture recently acquired new significance through the work of Pakianathan and Yalçın  on $`G`$-CW-complexes, as we shall see in Corollary 1.3.

In this paper we disprove the Essential Conjecture. That is, we prove the following:

###### Theorem 1.1

Let $`G`$ be a Sylow $`2`$-subgroup of the special unitary group $`\mathrm{𝑆𝑈}_3(4)`$. Then $`\mathrm{Ess}(G)^2\{0\}`$. To be more precise, there are essential classes in $`H^4(G,𝔽_2)`$ and $`H^{10}(G,𝔽_2)`$ whose product is nonzero. This nonzero element of $`H^{14}(G,𝔽_2)`$ is the last survivor in the sense of Benson and Carlson . Moreover there are essential classes in degrees six and eight whose product is the last survivor too.

Theorem 1.1 is proved in Propositions 3.7 and 3.8. Two corollaries can be immediately deduced. The first one was predicted by Minh in , who observed that in cases studied to date, the essential ideal had to square to zero, because each essential class was a sum of transfers from proper subgroups. This raises the question of whether essential classes are always sums of transfers.

###### Corollary 1.2

Let $`G`$ be a Sylow $`2`$-subgroup of the special unitary group $`\mathrm{𝑆𝑈}_3(4)`$. Then $`\mathrm{Ess}(G)`$ is not contained in $`\mathrm{Tr}(G)`$, the ideal in $`H^{}(G,𝔽_2)`$ generated by all transfers from proper subgroups.

* By Frobenius reciprocity, essential classes annihilate transfer classes. So if two essential classes have nonzero product, then neither can lie in $`\mathrm{Tr}(G)`$.

The second corollary is particularly intriguing. It concerns the theory of transformation groups and was predicted by Pakianathan and Yalçın in . Recall from tom Dieck’s book \[10, III (3.14)\] that if $`G`$ is elementary abelian and $`X`$ a finite-dimensional $`G`$-CW-complex, then $`X`$ has a fixed point if and only if the map $`H_G^{}()H_G^{}(X)`$ is injective. The key assumption here is that $`G`$ is elementary abelian. Now consider the following corollary:

###### Corollary 1.3

Let $`G`$ be a Sylow $`2`$-subgroup of the special unitary group $`\mathrm{𝑆𝑈}_3(4)`$ and let $`X`$ be a connected $`1`$-dimensional $`G`$-CW-complex. Then $`X`$ has a fixed point if and only if the map $`H_G^{}()H_G^{}(X)`$ is injective.

* This is Theorem 6.2 of .

This raises the interesting question of whether there are other groups for which $`\mathrm{Ess}(G)^r`$ is nonzero for values of $`r`$ greater than two. For the groups concerned this would lead by the results of  to similar fixed point theorems in higher dimensions. An obvious family of groups to study would be the Sylow $`2`$-subgroups of $`\mathrm{𝑆𝑈}_3(2^n)`$.

The fact that $`\mathrm{Ess}(G)^2`$ is nonzero for the Sylow $`2`$-subgroups of $`\mathrm{𝑆𝑈}_3(4)`$ was first observed on the computer . The argument presented here uses J. Clark’s elegant spectral sequence calculation , with minor corrections.

## 2 Clark’s approach to the cohomology calculation

Let $`G`$ be a Sylow $`2`$-subgroup of the unitary group $`\mathrm{𝑆𝑈}_3(4)`$. See Aschbacher’s book \[1, §22\] for a discussion of unitary groups, and Evens’ book  for a general reference on group cohomology. As in Exercise 1 on p. 100 of , Clark identifies $`G`$ with the group of upper triangular matrices $`\left(\begin{array}{ccc}1& a& b\\ 0& 1& a^4\\ 0& 0& 1\end{array}\right)`$ over $`𝔽_{16}`$ satisfying $`b+b^4=a^5`$. The centre of $`G`$ is elementary abelian of rank two, the quotient by the centre is elementary abelian of rank four, and every noncentral element has exponent four. So the centre is the sole maximal elementary abelian subgroup and the cohomology ring over any field of characteristic $`2`$ is Cohen–Macaulay by Duflot’s theorem (Theorem 10.3.1 in Evens’ book ).

The cohomology ring of $`G`$ over the field $`𝔽_{16}`$ was calculated by Clark  using the Lyndon–Hochschild–Serre spectral sequence of the central extension $`1Z(G)GG/Z(G)1`$. Clark makes elegant use of the Frobenius automorphism and of the action of the normalizer of $`G`$.

The normalizer of $`G`$ in $`\mathrm{𝑆𝑈}_3(4)`$ is $`WG`$, where $`W`$ is the cyclic group of order $`15`$ generated by the diagonal matrix $`T:=\mathrm{diag}(\zeta ^1,\zeta ^3,\zeta ^4)`$ for $`\zeta 𝔽_{16}`$ is a primitive $`15`$th root of unity. Choose $`\zeta `$ to be a zero of $`X^4+X^3+1`$, meaning that

$$\zeta ^8+\zeta ^4+\zeta ^2+\zeta =1.$$
(2.1)
The spectral sequence is equivariant for the conjugation action of $`W`$, and the action of $`T`$ on $`H^1(G,𝔽_{16})=H^1(G/Z(G),𝔽_{16})`$ is diagonalisable with eigenvalues $`\zeta ,\zeta ^2,\zeta ^4,\zeta ^8`$. Similarly the action of $`T`$ on $`H^1(Z(G),𝔽_{16})`$ is diagonalisable with eigenvalues $`\zeta ^5,\zeta ^{10}`$. The Frobenius automorphism $`F:𝔽_{16}𝔽_{16}`$, $`F(\alpha )=\alpha ^2`$ also acts on the spectral sequence, and the spectral sequence for $`H^{}(G,𝔽_{16})`$ is just the spectral sequence for $`H^{}(G,𝔽_2)`$ tensored with $`𝔽_{16}`$. Moreover, the actions of $`T`$ and $`F`$ commute with each other.

Pick a $`T`$-eigenvector $`a_1H^1(G,𝔽_{16})`$ with eigenvalue $`\zeta `$, and set $`a_2=F(a_1)`$, $`a_4=F(a_2)`$ and $`a_8=F(a_4)`$. Then $`a_1,a_2,a_4,a_8`$ is a basis for $`H^1(G,𝔽_{16})`$ which is permuted cyclically by $`F`$. Here and elsewhere in this paper, a subscript $`i`$ means that the element concerned is an eigenvector for $`T`$ with eigenvalue $`\zeta ^i`$.

Pick $`u_5H^1(Z(G),𝔽_{16})`$ to be an eigenvector of $`T`$ with eigenvalue $`\zeta ^5`$. Then $`u_5E_2^{0,1}`$ and $`d_2(u_5)`$ must be a scalar multiple of $`a_1a_4`$, as this is a basis for the eigenspace in $`E_2^{2,0}`$ with eigenvalue $`\zeta ^5`$. As $`G`$ is not elementary abelian, $`d_2(u_5)`$ cannot be zero, and so we may choose $`u_5`$ to satisfy $`d_2(u_5)=a_1a_4`$. Note that $`u_5H^1(Z(G),𝔽_4)`$, since $`d_2(F^2(u_5))=d_2(u_5)`$. Setting $`u_{10}=F(u_5)`$, we have that $`u_5,u_{10}`$ is a basis111We write $`u_5,u_{10}`$ for Clark’s $`a_5,a_{10}`$. Apart from this we follow his notation. for $`H^1(Z(G),𝔽_{16})`$ which is transposed by $`F`$. Moreover,

$$d_2(u_5)=a_1a_4\text{and}d_2(u_{10})=a_2a_8.$$
(2.2)
An element $`xE_r^{s,t}`$ is rational (meaning: comes from the spectral sequence for $`𝔽_2`$) if and only if $`F(x)=x`$. So in particular

$$H^1(G,𝔽_2)=\{\alpha a_1+\alpha ^2a_2+\alpha ^4a_4+\alpha ^8a_8\alpha 𝔽_{16}\}.$$
(2.3)
* Let us denote by $`𝒩`$ the $`𝔽_2`$-linear map $`𝒩(x)=x+F(x)+F^2(x)+F^3(x)`$. Then $`𝒩:H^n(G,𝔽_{16})H^n(G,𝔽_2)`$ and $`𝒩:E_r^{pq}(𝔽_{16})E_r^{pq}(𝔽_2)`$, the latter being a map of spectral sequences which is $`H^{}(G,𝔽_2)`$-linear but does not in general respect products.

## 3 Essential classes

We shall now assume that the reader is familiar with Clark’s spectral sequence calculation of $`H^{}(G,𝔽_{16})`$, at least as far as the $`E_{\mathrm{}}`$-page. This calculation is performed in Appendix A for the sake of completeness, and because we need an explicit basis for the $`E_{\mathrm{}}`$-page. The appendix also points out some errors in Clark’s relations.

Observe that the ideal of essential classes in $`H^{}(G,𝔽_{16})`$ is obtained from the essential ideal in $`H^{}(G,𝔽_2)`$ by extending scalars. So for the Essential Conjecture it is immaterial whether we work over a prime field or over an extension field.

A sufficient (and in fact necessary) condition for a class in $`H^{}(G,𝔽_{16})`$ to be essential is that it is divisible by each nonzero element of $`H^1(G,𝔽_2)`$. So a class is essential if it is divisible by $`𝒩(\alpha a_1)`$ for each $`\alpha 𝔽_{16}^{}`$ (c.f. Eqn. (2.3)).

###### Lemma 3.1

Every inflation class in $`H^4(G,k)`$ is essential.

* A basis for $`E_{\mathrm{}}^{4,0}`$ consists of $`a_1^4,a_2^4,a_3^4,a_4^4,a_1^3a_2,a_2^3a_4,a_4^3a_8,a_8^3a_1`$. Now,

$$a_1^2a_2𝒩(\alpha a_1)=\alpha a_1^3a_2a_1^3𝒩(\alpha a_1)=\alpha a_1^4+\alpha ^2a_1^3a_2$$

by the relations in Equations (A.3) and (A.4). So $`a_1^3a_2`$ and $`a_1^4`$ are both divisible by $`𝒩(\alpha a_1)`$ for each $`\alpha 𝔽_{16}^{}`$. Now apply the Frobenius map $`F`$.

* We shall say that a class in $`E_{\mathrm{}}^{}`$ is $`E_{\mathrm{}}`$-essential if it is divisible by each nonzero $`F`$-stable element of $`E_{\mathrm{}}^{1,0}`$.

Let $`xE_{\mathrm{}}^{pq}`$ be an $`E_{\mathrm{}}`$-essential class. For certain values of $`p,q`$ we shall show that every class $`yH^{}(G,𝔽_{16})`$ which is represented by $`x`$ is essential. For $`q=0`$ this is obvious.

###### Lemma 3.2

Each class in $`E_{\mathrm{}}^{6,2}`$ and in $`E_{\mathrm{}}^{6,4}`$ is $`E_{\mathrm{}}`$-essential. Hence each element of $`H^8(G,𝔽_{16})`$ which is represented by an element of $`E_{\mathrm{}}^{6,2}`$ is essential, as is each element of $`H^{10}(G,𝔽_{16})`$ which is represented by an element of $`E_{\mathrm{}}^{6,4}`$.

* The second part follows from the first because $`E_{\mathrm{}}^{6,2}`$ and $`E_{\mathrm{}}^{6,4}`$ are subspaces of $`H^8(G,𝔽_{16})`$ and $`H^{10}(G,𝔽_{16})`$ respectively (see Figure A.1 on p. A.1). For the first part, note that the multiplication maps $`E_{\mathrm{}}^{2,2}E_{\mathrm{}}^{4,0}E_{\mathrm{}}^{6,2}`$ and $`E_{\mathrm{}}^{2,4}E_{\mathrm{}}^{4,0}E_{\mathrm{}}^{6,4}`$ are surjective. But every element of $`E_{\mathrm{}}^{4,0}`$ is $`E_{\mathrm{}}`$-essential, by the proof of Lemma 3.1.

###### Corollary 3.3

Suppose that $`xE_{\mathrm{}}^{4,4}`$ is $`E_{\mathrm{}}`$-essential. Then every class $`yH^8(G,𝔽_{16})`$ which is represented by $`x`$ is essential. Similarly, if $`xE_{\mathrm{}}^{6,4}`$ is $`E_{\mathrm{}}`$-essential, then every $`yH^{10}(G,k)`$ represented by $`x`$ is essential.

* Let $`zH^1(G,𝔽_2)\{0\}`$. By assumption there is $`wE_{\mathrm{}}^{3,4}`$ such that $`zw=x`$. Let $`\stackrel{~}{w}H^7(G,𝔽_{16})`$ be a class which is represented by $`w`$. Then $`yz\stackrel{~}{w}`$ lies in the subspace $`E_{\mathrm{}}^{6,2}`$ of $`H^8(G,𝔽_{16})`$. So by Lemma 3.2 there is $`vH^7(G,𝔽_{16})`$ with $`y=z(\stackrel{~}{w}+v)`$. The second part is proved similarly.

###### Lemma 3.4

Every element of $`E_{\mathrm{}}^{4,4}`$ is $`E_{\mathrm{}}`$-essential. Therefore every element of $`H^8(G,𝔽_{16})`$, whose restriction to the centre of $`G`$ is trivial, is essential.

* The $`F`$-orbits of $`a_4^2\delta _3`$ and $`a_4^2\delta _7`$ constitute a basis for $`E_{\mathrm{}}^{4,4}`$. One has

$$a_4\delta _3𝒩(\alpha a_1)=\alpha ^4a_4^2\delta _3+\alpha ^8a_4^2\delta _7\text{and}a_4\delta _7𝒩(\alpha a_1)=\alpha ^4a_4^2\delta _7$$

from the definitions in Eqn. (A.8) and the relations in the $`E_4`$-page. Now use the corollary.

Note that $`𝒩`$ satisfies the product rule $`𝒩(A)𝒩(B)=𝒩(A𝒩(B))`$.

###### Lemma 3.5

Suppose that $`yH^{10}(G,𝔽_{16})`$ is represented by a class $`xE_{\mathrm{}}^{4,6}`$ of the form $`x=𝒩(\omega a_4\tau _6)`$ with $`\omega 𝔽_4^{}`$. Then $`y`$ is an essential class.

* The class $`x`$ is $`E_{\mathrm{}}`$-essential since $`𝒩(\omega \alpha ^{11}\tau _6)𝒩(\alpha a_1)=x+𝒩(\omega \alpha ^4a_8\tau _6)`$ and $`(\omega \tau _{10}+\omega ^2\tau _5)𝒩(\alpha a_1)=𝒩(\omega \alpha ^4a_8\tau _6)`$. Now use Corollary 3.3.

Observe that $`(X^8+X^4+X^2+X)(X^8+X^4+X^2+X+1)=X^{16}+X`$ in $`𝔽_2[X]`$, and that therefore $`X^8+X^4+X^2+X`$ has eight distinct zeros in $`𝔽_{16}`$. Observe further that these zeros form an $`𝔽_2`$-vector subspace.

###### Lemma 3.6

Suppose that $`yH^6(G,𝔽_{16})`$ is represented by a class $`xE_{\mathrm{}}^{4,2}`$ of the form $`x=𝒩(\lambda a_4^2\beta _7)`$ with $`\lambda 𝔽_{16}`$ satisfying $`𝒩(\lambda )=0`$. Then $`y`$ is essential.

* Since $`E_{\mathrm{}}^{4,2}`$ is a subspace of $`H^6`$, it suffices to show that $`x`$ is $`E_{\mathrm{}}`$-essential. Observe that $`(X^2+X+\alpha )=X^{16}+X`$ in $`𝔽_2[X]`$, where the product is taken over the zeros $`\alpha `$ of $`X^8+X^4+X^2+X`$. So we may pick a $`\mu 𝔽_{16}`$ satisfying $`\mu ^2+\mu =\lambda `$. One then has $`𝒩(\alpha a_1)𝒩(\lambda \alpha ^{11}a_4\beta _7+\mu a_8\beta _7)=𝒩(\lambda a_4^2\beta _7)`$ for all $`\alpha 𝔽_{16}^{}`$.

###### Proposition 3.7

Pick $`\omega 𝔽_4^{}`$. Let $`\eta H^{10}(G,𝔽_2)`$ be the class $`𝒩(\eta ^{})`$ for some $`\eta ^{}H^{10}(G,𝔽_{16})`$ which is represented by $`\omega a_4\tau _6E_{\mathrm{}}^{4,6}`$. Let $`\theta H^4(G,𝔽_2)`$ be the class $`𝒩(\omega ^1\zeta a_4^3a_8)`$. Then $`\eta `$ and $`\theta `$ are both essential classes, and $`\eta \theta =\xi `$. Hence $`\mathrm{Ess}(G)^2`$ is nonzero.

See §A.3 for the definition of the class $`\xi `$. It is the last survivor in the sense of Benson and Carlson  for the polynomial generators representing $`u_5^8,u_{10}^8`$.

* Lemma 3.1 says that $`\theta `$ is essential, and $`\eta `$ is essential by Lemma 3.5. Note that $`\omega a_4\tau _6𝒩(\omega ^1\zeta a_4^3a_8)=\zeta a_4^5a_8\beta _7u_{10}^4=\zeta \xi `$, and so $`\eta \theta =𝒩(\zeta \xi )`$. As $`\xi `$ is $`F`$-stable and $`𝒩(\zeta )=1`$ by Eqn. (2.1), it follows that $`𝒩(\zeta \xi )=\xi `$.

###### Proposition 3.8

Pick $`\lambda 𝔽_{16}^{}`$ to be one of the seven zeros of $`X^7+X^3+X+1`$. Let $`\varphi H^6(G,𝔽_2)`$ be $`𝒩(y)`$ for $`y=\lambda a_4^2\beta _7`$ in $`E_{\mathrm{}}^{4,2}H^6(G,𝔽_{16})`$. Let $`\psi H^8(G,𝔽_2)`$ be $`𝒩(z)`$ for some $`zH^8(G,𝔽_{16})`$ which is represented by $`\lambda ^1\zeta a_4^2\delta _7E_{\mathrm{}}^{4,4}`$. Then $`\varphi `$ and $`\psi `$ are essential, and $`\varphi \psi =\xi `$.

* Lemma 3.6 says that $`\varphi `$ is essential, and $`\psi `$ is essential by Lemma 3.4. Now $`\lambda a_4^2\beta _7𝒩(\lambda ^1\zeta a_4^3a_8u_{10}^4)=\zeta a_4^4\tau _6=\zeta \xi `$. Therefore $`𝒩(y)𝒩(z)=𝒩(\zeta )\xi =\xi `$.

#### Report on the computer calculation

The fact that $`\mathrm{Ess}(G)^2`$ is nonzero for this group $`G`$ was first observed using the author’s computer program . As a module over the polynomial algebra $`k[u_5^8,u_{10}^8]`$, the ideal of essential classes is free with 75 generators. The degrees of these generators are given by the generating function $`8t^4+6t^5+3t^6+8t^7+16t^8+7t^9+6t^{10}+8t^{11}+8t^{12}+4t^{13}+t^{14}`$. The calculations above show that in dimensions 4,5,6,8,10 and 14 there are (at least) as many essential classes as the computer states there to be. The computer states further that Propositions 3.7 and 3.8 account for all nontrivial products of essential classes. In particular, $`\mathrm{Ess}(G)^3`$ is zero.

## Appendix A Clark’s spectral sequence calculation

For Section 3 we need an explicit basis for the $`E_{\mathrm{}}`$-page of the spectral sequence. We shall derive such a basis here. In §A.4 we point out some errors in Clark’s original calculation .

From Section 2 we know that the $`E_2`$-page of the spectral sequence is the polynomial algebra $`𝔽_{16}[a_1,a_2,a_4,a_8,u_5,u_{10}]`$, with the first four generators lying in $`E_2^{1,0}`$ and the last two in $`E_2^{0,1}`$. From the formula for the differential $`d_2`$ in Eqn. (2.2) one sees that the $`E_3`$-page is $`𝔽_{16}[a_1,a_2,a_4,a_8]/(a_1a_4,a_2a_8)𝔽_{16}[u_5^2,u_{10}^2]`$: for $`a_1a_4,a_2a_8`$ is a regular sequence in $`E_2^{}`$.

### A.1 The $`E_4`$-page of the spectral sequence

###### Lemma A.1

The $`E_4`$-page of the spectral sequence is generated by $`a_1,a_2,a_4,a_8E_4^{1,0}`$, $`\beta _7,\beta _{14},\beta _{13},\beta _{11}E_4^{2,2}`$ and $`u_5^4,u_{10}^4E_4^{0,4}`$. These generators are permuted by $`F`$ in the obvious way. The classes $`\beta _i`$ are represented in $`Z_5^{2,2}`$ by

$$\beta _7=a_4a_8u_5^2\beta _{14}=a_8a_1u_{10}^2\beta _{13}=a_1a_2u_5^2\beta _{11}=a_2a_4u_{10}^2.$$
(A.2)
The relations ideal is generated by

$$\begin{array}{c}a_1a_4a_2a_8a_8a_1^2+a_2a_4^2a_4a_8^2+a_1a_2^2\\ a_1\beta _7a_2\beta _7a_2\beta _{14}a_4\beta _{14}a_4\beta _{13}a_8\beta _{13}a_8\beta _{11}a_1\beta _{11}\\ a_1\beta _{14}+a_2\beta _{13}+a_4\beta _{11}+a_8\beta _7\beta _i^2\beta _i\beta _j\end{array}.$$
(A.3)
The following relations also hold:

$$\begin{array}{c}a_1^2a_2^2a_2^2a_4^2a_4^2a_8^2a_8^2a_1^2a_1a_2^3a_2a_4^3a_4a_8^3a_8a_1^3\\ a_8^2\beta _7+a_8a_1\beta _{14}a_1^2\beta _{14}+a_1a_2\beta _{13}a_2^2\beta _{13}+a_2a_4\beta _{11}a_4^2\beta _{11}+a_4a_8\beta _7\\ a_4a_8^2\beta _7a_8a_1^2\beta _{14}a_1a_2^2\beta _{13}a_2a_4^2\beta _{11}\end{array}.$$
(A.4)
The $`E_4`$-page is $`E_4^0(E_4^0E_4^2)`$. A basis for $`E_4^0`$ is

$$\begin{array}{c}a_1^{r+1},a_2^{r+1},a_4^{r+1},a_8^{r+1};a_1^{r+1}a_2,a_2^{r+1}a_4,a_4^{r+1}a_8,a_8^{r+1}a_1\text{for }r0\text{;}\\ 1;a_1a_2^2,a_2a_4^2\end{array}.$$
(A.5)
This basis is permuted by $`F`$. One orbit has length one, one has length two, and the remainder have length four. A basis for $`E_4^2`$ is

$$\begin{array}{c}a_4^r\beta _7,a_8^r\beta _{14},a_1^r\beta _{13},a_2^r\beta _{11}\hfill \\ a_4^{r+1}a_8\beta _7,a_8^{r+1}a_1\beta _{14},a_1^{r+1}a_2\beta _{13},a_2^{r+1}a_4\beta _{11}\hfill \end{array}\}\text{for }r0\text{;}a_8\beta _7,a_2\beta _{13},a_4\beta _{11}.$$
(A.6)
The orbit sum of $`a_8\beta _7`$ is zero. The rest of the basis is permuted freely by $`F`$.

* A basis for $`E_3^0`$ is: $`1`$; $`a_1^{r+1}`$ and its $`F`$-orbit (length four); $`a_1^{r+1}a_2^{s+1}`$ and its $`F`$-orbit (length four). Here $`r,s0`$. Note that $`x^2=F\mathrm{Sq}^r(x)`$ for $`xH^r(G,𝔽_{16})`$. Hence $`d_3(u_5^2)=d_3\mathrm{Sq}^1(u_{10})=\mathrm{Sq}^1d_2u_{10}=a_1^2a_8+a_2a_4^2`$, and so $`d_3`$ acts as follows:

$`u_5^2`$ $`a_8a_1^2+a_2a_4^2`$ $`a_1^{r+1}u_5^2`$ $`a_8a_1^{r+3}`$ $`a_1^{r+1}a_2^{s+1}u_5^2`$ $`0`$
$`u_{10}^2`$ $`a_1a_2^2+a_4a_8^2`$ $`a_1^{r+1}u_{10}^2`$ $`a_1^{r+2}a_2^2`$ $`a_1^{r+1}a_2^{s+1}u_{10}^2`$ $`a_1^{r+2}a_2^{s+3}`$
Hence $`E_4^0`$ has the advertised basis, and a basis for $`Z_3^2`$ consists of the $`a_1^ra_2^s\beta _{13}`$ for $`r,s0`$, together with their length four $`F`$-orbits. Since $`a_ia_ja_k=0`$ in $`E_3^{3,0}`$ if $`i,j,k`$ are pairwise distinct, one sees that $`\beta _i\beta _j=0`$ in $`E_3^{4,4}`$ if $`ij`$; and $`a_i\beta _j=0`$ in $`E_3^{3,2}`$ if $`a_i`$ does not feature in the definition of $`\beta _j`$. Since $`\beta _7^2=d_3(a_4u_5^4u_{10}^2)`$, one has $`\beta _i^2=0`$ in $`E_4^{4,4}`$. The action of $`d_3`$ on $`E_3^4`$ is given by

$$\begin{array}{c}u_5^2u_{10}^2a_1\beta _{14}+a_2\beta _{13}+a_4\beta _{11}+a_8\beta _7\\ a_1^{r+1}u_5^2u_{10}^2a_1^{r+2}\beta _{14}+a_1^{r+1}a_2\beta _{13}a_1^{r+1}a_2^{s+1}u_5^2u_{10}^2a_1^{r+1}a_2^{s+2}\beta _{13}\end{array}.$$

So $`E_4^2`$ has the advertised basis, $`Z_3^4=u_5^4Z_3^0+u_{10}^4Z_3^0`$, and the relations ideal is as claimed.

### A.2 The $`E_{\mathrm{}}`$-page of the spectral sequence

###### Proposition A.7

The $`E_{\mathrm{}}`$-page of the spectral sequence is generated by $`u_5^8,u_{10}^8E_{\mathrm{}}^{0,8}`$, $`a_1,a_2,a_4,a_8E_{\mathrm{}}^{1,0}`$, $`\beta _7,\beta _{14},\beta _{13},\beta _{11}E_{\mathrm{}}^{2,2}`$, $`\delta _3,\delta _6,\delta _{12},\delta _9`$ and $`\delta _7,\delta _{14},\delta _{13},\delta _{11}`$ in $`E_{\mathrm{}}^{2,4}`$, $`\tau _5,\tau _{10}`$ and $`\tau _3,\tau _6,\tau _{12},\tau _9`$ in $`E_{\mathrm{}}^{3,6}`$, and $`\chi _5,\chi _{10}E_{\mathrm{}}^{3,8}`$. These generators are permuted by $`F`$ in the obvious way. Their representatives in $`Z_5^{}`$ are as follows:

$$\begin{array}{c}\begin{array}{cccccccc}\hfill \delta _3& =a_4^2u_{10}^4\hfill & \hfill \delta _6& =a_8^2u_5^4\hfill & \hfill \delta _{12}& =a_1^2u_{10}^4\hfill & \hfill \delta _9& =a_2^2u_5^4\hfill \\ \hfill \delta _7& =a_4a_8u_{10}^4\hfill & \hfill \delta _{14}& =a_8a_1u_5^4\hfill & \hfill \delta _{13}& =a_1a_2u_{10}^4\hfill & \hfill \delta _{11}& =a_2a_4u_5^4\hfill \\ \hfill \tau _3& =a_2\beta _{11}u_5^4\hfill & \hfill \tau _6& =a_4\beta _7u_{10}^4\hfill & \hfill \tau _{12}& =a_8\beta _{14}u_5^4\hfill & \hfill \tau _9& =a_1\beta _{13}u_{10}^4\hfill \end{array}\\ \begin{array}{cccc}\hfill \tau _5& =(a_8\beta _7+a_4\beta _{11})u_5^4\hfill & \hfill \tau _{10}& =(a_2\beta _{13}+a_4\beta _{11})u_{10}^4\hfill \\ \hfill \chi _5& =a_1a_2^2u_5^4u_{10}^4\hfill & \hfill \chi _{10}& =a_2a_4^2u_5^4u_{10}^4\hfill \end{array}\end{array}.$$
(A.8)
The $`E_{\mathrm{}}`$-page is $`E_{\mathrm{}}^0(E_{\mathrm{}}^0E_{\mathrm{}}^2E_{\mathrm{}}^4E_{\mathrm{}}^6𝔽_{16}\{\chi _5,\chi _{10}\})`$. A basis for $`E_{\mathrm{}}^0`$ is

$$\begin{array}{c}a_1^{r+1},a_2^{r+1},a_4^{r+1},a_8^{r+1};a_1^{r+1}a_2,a_2^{r+1}a_4,a_4^{r+1}a_8,a_8^{r+1}a_1\text{for }r3\text{;}\\ 1;a_1a_2^2,a_2a_4^2;a_1^5,a_2^5\end{array}.$$
(A.9)
This basis is permuted by $`F`$. One orbit has length one, two have length two, and the remainder have length four. A basis for $`E_{\mathrm{}}^2`$ is

$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill a_4^r\beta _7,a_8^r\beta _{14},a_1^r\beta _{13},a_2^r\beta _{11}& \text{for }r4\hfill \\ \hfill a_4^{r+1}a_8\beta _7,a_8^{r+1}a_1\beta _{14},a_1^{r+1}a_2\beta _{13},a_2^{r+1}a_4\beta _{11}& \text{for }r2\hfill \end{array}a_8\beta _7,a_2\beta _{13},a_4\beta _{11}.$$
(A.10)
The orbit sum of $`a_8\beta _7`$ is zero. The rest of the basis is permuted freely by $`F`$. A basis for $`E_{\mathrm{}}^4`$ is

$$\begin{array}{c}a_4^r\delta _7,a_8^r\delta _{14},a_1^r\delta _{13},a_2^r\delta _{11}\text{for }r4a_4^r\delta _3,a_8^r\delta _6,a_1^r\delta _{12},a_2^r\delta _9\text{for }r2\\ a_2\delta _3,a_4\delta _6a_8\delta _7,a_1\delta _{14}a_4^3\delta _3,a_8^3\delta _6,a_2^3\delta _9\end{array}$$
(A.11)
Apart from the last three terms, this basis is permuted by $`F`$. Two orbits have length two, the rest length four. The orbit sum of $`a_4^3\delta _3`$ is zero. A basis for $`E_{\mathrm{}}^6`$ is

$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill a_2^r\tau _3,a_4^r\tau _6,a_8^r\tau _{12},a_1^r\tau _9& \text{for }r3\hfill \\ \hfill a_2^ra_4\tau _3,a_4^ra_8\tau _6,a_8^ra_1\tau _{12},a_1^ra_2\tau _9& \text{for }r3\hfill \end{array}\tau _5,\tau _{10};\xi ,$$
(A.12)
where the class $`\xi =a_2^4a_4\tau _3`$ is $`F`$-stable, and the remaining basis elements are permuted in the obvious way.

Summing up, the dimension of $`E_{\mathrm{}}^{pq}/(u_5^8,u_{10}^8)`$ may be read off from Figure A.1 (an empty entry means dimension zero).

The relations ideal for the $`E_{\mathrm{}}`$-page can be recovered from the relations in the $`E_4`$-page (Equations (A.3) and (A.4)), together with the relations $`a_1^5+a_4^5`$, $`a_2^5+a_8^5`$ and $`a_4^3\delta _3+a_8^3\delta _6+a_1^3\delta _{12}+a_2^3\delta _9`$: these three expressions are the images under $`d_5`$ of $`u_5^4`$, $`u_{10}^4`$ and $`u_5^4u_{10}^4`$ respectively.

* The $`\beta _i`$ are permanent cycles for degree reasons, and the classes $`u_5^4,u_{10}^4`$ are transgressive. So the $`E_5`$-page coincides with the $`E_4`$-page. We shall show that the $`E_6`$-page takes the form claimed for the $`E_{\mathrm{}}`$-page. Then as $`E_6^{r+6,0}=E_6^{r+7,2}=0`$ for all $`r0`$, one deduces that there are no further differentials and that $`E_6^{}=E_{\mathrm{}}^{}`$.

Arguing as for $`d_3`$, one has $`d_5(u_5^4)=a_1^5+a_4^5`$. So $`d_5:E_5^4E_5^0`$ acts thus:

$`u_5^4`$ $`a_4^5+a_1^5`$ $`a_1^{r+1}a_2u_5^4`$ $`a_1^{r+6}a_2`$ $`a_1a_2^2u_5^4`$ $`0`$
$`u_{10}^4`$ $`a_8^5+a_2^5`$ $`a_1^{r+1}a_2u_{10}^4`$ $`0`$ $`a_1a_2^2u_{10}^4`$ $`0`$
$`a_1^{r+1}u_5^4`$ $`a_1^{r+6}`$ $`a_1u_{10}^4`$ $`a_8^5a_1`$ $`a_1^{r+2}u_{10}^4`$ $`0`$
Hence $`E_6^0`$ has the advertised basis, and a basis for $`Z_5^4`$ consists of the $`F`$-orbits of $`a_2\delta _3,a_8\delta _7`$ (both length two) and the $`F`$-orbits of $`a_4^r\delta _3,a_4^r\delta _7`$ (both length four) for $`r0`$. The map $`d_5:E_5^8E_5^4`$ is given by

$$\begin{array}{c}u_5^4u_{10}^4a_4^3\delta _3+a_8^3\delta _6+a_1^3\delta _{12}+a_2^3\delta _9\\ \begin{array}{cccc}\hfill a_4u_5^4u_{10}^4& a_4^4\delta _3+a_2^4\delta _{11}\hfill & \hfill a_4^{r+2}u_5^4u_{10}^4& a_4^{r+5}\delta _3\hfill \\ \hfill a_1a_2^2u_5^4u_{10}^4& 0\hfill & \hfill a_4^{r+1}a_8u_5^4u_{10}^4& a_4^{r+5}\delta _7\hfill \end{array}\end{array}.$$

This yields the desired basis for $`E_6^4`$, and shows that $`\chi _5,\chi _{10}`$ are a basis for a complement of $`u_5^8E_6^0+u_{10}^8E_6^0`$ in $`E_6^8`$.

The map $`d_5:E_5^6E_5^2`$ is given by

$`a_4^r\beta _7u_5^4`$ $`a_4^{r+5}\beta _7`$ $`\beta _7u_{10}^4`$ $`a_8^4a_1\beta _{14}a_4^{r+1}\beta _7u_{10}^40`$
$`a_4^{r+1}a_8\beta _7u_5^4`$ $`a_4^{r+6}a_8\beta _7`$ $`a_4^{r+1}a_8\beta _7u_{10}^4`$ $`0`$
$`a_8\beta _7u_5^4`$ $`a_4^5a_8\beta _7`$ $`a_8\beta _7u_{10}^4`$ $`a_8^5a_1\beta _{14}`$
(For the last statement, note that $`a_8^6\beta _7=a_8^5a_1\beta _{14}`$ by Eqn. (A.4).) Hence $`E_6^2`$ has the advertised basis, and a basis for $`Z_5^6`$ consists of the $`F`$-orbits of $`\tau _5`$ (length two) and of $`a_2^r\tau _3,a_2^ra_4\tau _3`$ (both length four) for $`r0`$. The map $`d_5:E_5^{,10}E_5^6`$ is given by

$`\beta _7u_5^4u_{10}^4`$ $`a_4^4\tau _6+a_8^3a_1\tau _{12}`$ $`a_4^{r+1}\beta _7u_5^4u_{10}^4`$ $`a_4^{r+5}\tau _6`$
$`a_4^{r+1}a_8\beta _7u_5^4u_{10}^4`$ $`a_4^{r+5}a_8\tau _6`$ $`a_8\beta _7u_5^4u_{10}^4`$ $`a_4^4a_8\tau _6+a_8^4a_1\tau _{12}`$
So $`E_6^6`$ has the advertised basis, and $`E_6^{,10}=u_5^8E_6^2u_{10}^8E_6^2`$.

### A.3 The last survivor

Let $`k`$ be a field of characteristic two. Since $`H^{}(G,k)`$ is a Cohen–Macaulay ring (as noted on p. 2), one sees from Figure A.1 that its Poincaré series $`P(t)`$ is

$$\frac{1+4t+8t^2+10t^3+12t^4+13t^5+16t^6+20t^7+16t^8+13t^9+12t^{10}+10t^{11}+8t^{12}+4t^{13}+t^{14}}{(1t^8)^2}.$$
(A.13)
Then $`P(t)`$ satisfies the functional equation $`P(1/t)=t^2P(t)`$, as required by Theorem 1.1 of Benson and Carlson’s paper . This theorem states additionally that $`H^{}(G,k)/(u_5^8,u_{10}^8)`$ satisfies Poincaré duality222If $`k`$ does not contain $`𝔽_4`$, then $`u_5^8,u_{10}^8`$ are not defined over $`k`$. Consider instead the parameter system $`u_5^8+u_{10}^8,\omega u_5^8+\omega ^2u_{10}^8`$ for $`\omega 𝔽_4𝔽_2`$. This is defined over $`𝔽_2`$. in formal dimension $`14`$, the dual pairing being induced by the cup product $`H^r(G,k)H^{14r}(G,k)H^{14}(G,k)`$.

* Denote by $`\xi H^{14}(G,𝔽_2)`$ the unique nonzero $`F`$-stable element of $`E_{\mathrm{}}^{8,6}H^{14}(G,𝔽_{16})`$. This class is the last survivor of \[2, §7\]. By Theorem 1.3 of that paper, it is a transfer from $`Z(G)`$.

This class $`\xi `$ is represented by $`a_4^4\tau _6=a_4^5a_8\beta _7u_{10}^4`$, and by any term in its $`F`$-orbit.

### A.4 Errors in Clark’s calculation

Unfortunately some of the relations in the $`E_{\mathrm{}}`$-page are incorrect on pp. 1424–5 of Clark’s paper . Specifically there are problems with the linear dependencies among the terms $`\delta _ia_j`$ in $`E_{\mathrm{}}^{3,4}`$ and among the terms $`\tau _ia_j`$ in $`E_{\mathrm{}}^{4,6}`$. The correct relations in $`E_{\mathrm{}}^{3,4}`$ are that the following twenty expressions are zero:

$$\begin{array}{c}a_1\delta _7a_2\delta _7a_2\delta _{14}a_4\delta _{14}a_4\delta _{13}a_8\delta _{13}a_8\delta _{11}a_1\delta _{11}\\ a_1\delta _3a_2\delta _6a_4\delta _{12}a_8\delta _9\\ a_8\delta _{12}+a_2\delta _3a_1\delta _9+a_4\delta _6a_1\delta _{14}+a_4\delta _{11}a_2\delta _{13}+a_8\delta _7\\ a_8\delta _3+a_4\delta _7a_1\delta _6+a_8\delta _{14}a_2\delta _{12}+a_1\delta _{13}a_4\delta _9+a_2\delta _{11}\end{array}.$$
(A.14)
The correct relations in $`E_{\mathrm{}}^{4,6}`$ are that the following sixteen expressions are zero:

$$\begin{array}{c}a_1\tau _3a_2\tau _6a_4\tau _{12}a_8\tau _9a_8\tau _3a_1\tau _6a_2\tau _{12}a_4\tau _9\\ a_1\tau _5a_2\tau _{10}a_4\tau _5a_8\tau _{10}\\ a_2\tau _5+a_4\tau _3a_4\tau _{10}+a_8\tau _6a_8\tau _5+a_1\tau _{12}a_1\tau _{10}+a_2\tau _9\end{array}.$$
(A.15)
These relations may be verified using the definitions of the $`\delta _i,\tau _j`$ (Eqn. (A.8)) and the relations in the $`E_4`$-page (Equations (A.3) and (A.4)). There can be no more such relations, for one sees from Figure A.1 that $`dimE_{\mathrm{}}^{3,4}=12`$ and $`dimE_{\mathrm{}}^{4,6}=8`$.

By contrast, Clark states in Figure 1 on p. 1424 of  that $`E_{\mathrm{}}^{3,4}`$ has dimension ten. This leads to an incorrect coefficient of $`t^7`$ in the Poincaré series at the top of p. 1426: he has $`18`$, whereas the correct value is $`20`$ (see Eqn. (A.13)).

I have not investigated the ungrading problem for the corrected relations; in this paper we just need the $`E_{\mathrm{}}`$-page.

#### Acknowledgements

The author thanks J. F. Carlson, who first drew this group to his attention. The computer calculations mentioned here were performed on a machine belonging to Carlson.