text:
# Charm production from photo-nucleon reaction in a hadronic model

## I introduction

Reliable estimates of the production and scattering cross sections of open and/or hidden charmed hadrons in hadronic matter are important for understanding many phenomena in relativistic heavy ion collisions and hadron-nucleus reactions. In particular, the dissociation cross sections of $`J/\psi `$ by light meson or nucleon are directly related to the role of hadronic suppression of $`J/\psi `$ production in heavy ion collisions , and have thus been a subject under active investigations. In the heavy charm quark mass limit, a formula based on the leading-order (LO) perturbative QCD was derived in Refs.  for the absorption cross sections of $`J/\psi `$ by hadrons. Higher-order corrections due to the target mass and relativistic effects have also been estimated . However, the perturbative QCD approach is useful only at very high energy when nontrivial higher twist and higher $`\alpha _s`$ corrections are small. At low energies, these corrections become large, so nonperturbative approaches are needed. Various phenomenological models have thus been introduced for studying the $`J/\psi `$ absorption cross section by hadrons at low energies. These include the hadronic model based on effective Lagrangians , the QCD sum rules , and the quark-exchange model . Results from these phenomenological models all give much larger cross sections for $`J/\psi `$ absorption by light mesons than that given by the perturbative QCD formula. To test the prediction from the hadronic model, the same effective Lagrangian has been used to evaluate the absorption cross section of $`J/\psi `$ by nucleon, and it is found to be consistent with that extracted from photonuclear production of $`J/\psi `$ .

In the present paper, we generalize the effective hadronic Lagrangian, which has also been used to study charmed meson scattering by hadrons  and charmed meson production from meson-nucleon scattering , to include the photon and to study charmed hadron production from photo-nucleon reaction near threshold. Both two-body ($`\mathrm{\Lambda }_cD`$) and three-body ($`ND\overline{D}`$) final states are included. We find that using reasonable values for the cutoff parameters at the interaction vertices, the resulting charmed hadron production cross section near threshold energy is consistent with the measured one at center-of-mass energy of 6 GeV , although at high energies its value is much smaller than that measured experimentally or given by the LO perturbative QCD. We further find that the relative contribution of two-body to three-body final states is also consistent with the experimental data. Our results thus provide another independent test and confirmation of the validity of hadronic model for determining the cross sections involving heavy flavors at low energies. The effective hadronic Lagrangian used in the present study will also be useful for evaluating other low energy cross sections involving heavy flavored hadrons, which can be studied at both the Japanese Hadron facility  and at the GSI future accelerator , where open and hidden charmed hadrons are copiously produced in proton- and antiproton-nucleus reactions near threshold.

This paper is organized as follows. In Section II, we first calculate the cross sections for photoproduction of charmed hadrons from nucleon with three particles in the final state, which is dominated by pion and rho meson exchange. Photoproduction of charmed hadrons from nucleon with two particle in the final state, which includes the charmed meson exchange, is studied in Section III. In Section IV, we show the total cross section and compare it to available experimental data and results from the LO QCD. Finally, summary and discussions are given in Section V.

## II Photoproduction of charmed hadrons from nucleon with three-particle final states

In photoproduction of charmed hadrons from nucleon with three particle in the final states, the three possible reactions are $`\gamma N\overline{D}DN`$, $`\gamma N\overline{D}D^{}N(\overline{D}^{}DN)`$ ,and $`\gamma N\overline{D}^{}D^{}N`$. The lowest-order diagrams for the process $`\gamma N\overline{D}DN`$ are shown in Fig. 1 and involves the exchange of pion in the intermediate state; those for the processes $`\gamma N\overline{D}D^{}N(\overline{D}^{}DN)`$ and $`\gamma N\overline{D}^{}D^{}N`$ involve the exchange of rho meson, and the lowest-order diagrams for the two processes are shown in 2 and 3.

To evaluate the cross sections for these processes, we use the same Lagrangian introduced in Refs.  for studying charmed meson scattering by hadrons. This Lagrangian is based on the gauged SU(4) flavor symmetry but with empirical masses. The coupling constants are taken, if possible, from empirical information. Otherwise, the SU(4) relations are used to relate the unknown coupling constants to the known ones. Photon is then introduced in the Lagrangian via gauging its U$`{}_{\mathrm{em}}{}^{}(1)`$ part as in ref..

The interaction Lagrangian densities that are relevant to the processes shown in Figs. 1, 2, and 3 are given as follows:

$`_{\pi NN}`$ $`=`$ $`ig_{\pi NN}\overline{N}\gamma _5\stackrel{}{\tau }N\stackrel{}{\pi },`$ (1)
$`_{\rho NN}`$ $`=`$ $`g_{\rho NN}\overline{N}\left(\gamma ^\mu \stackrel{}{\tau }\stackrel{}{\rho }_\mu +{\displaystyle \frac{\kappa _\rho }{2m_N}}\sigma _{\mu \nu }\stackrel{}{\tau }_\mu \stackrel{}{\rho }_\nu \right)N,`$ (2)
$`_{\pi DD^{}}`$ $`=`$ $`ig_{\pi DD^{}}D^\mu \stackrel{}{\tau }(\overline{D}_\mu \stackrel{}{\pi }_\mu \overline{D}\stackrel{}{\pi })+\mathrm{H}.\mathrm{c}.,`$ (3)
$`_{\rho DD}`$ $`=`$ $`ig_{\rho DD}(D\stackrel{}{\tau }_\mu \overline{D}_\mu D\stackrel{}{\tau }\overline{D})\stackrel{}{\rho }^\mu ,`$ (4)
$`_{\rho D^{}D^{}}`$ $`=`$ $`ig_{\rho D^{}D^{}}[(_\mu D^\nu \stackrel{}{\tau }\overline{D}_\nu ^{}D^\nu \stackrel{}{\tau }_\mu \overline{D}_\nu ^{})\stackrel{}{\rho }^\mu `$ (5)
$`+`$ $`(D^\nu \stackrel{}{\tau }_\mu \stackrel{}{\rho }^\nu _\mu D^\nu \stackrel{}{\tau }\stackrel{}{\rho }_\nu )\overline{D}^\mu `$ (6)
$`+`$ $`D^\mu (\stackrel{}{\tau }\stackrel{}{\rho }^\nu _\mu \overline{D}_\nu ^{}\stackrel{}{\tau }_\mu \stackrel{}{\rho }^\nu \overline{D}_\nu ^{})],`$ (7)
$`_{\gamma DD}`$ $`=`$ $`ieA^\mu [DQ_\mu \overline{D}(_\mu D)Q\overline{D}],`$ (8)
$`_{\gamma D^{}D^{}}`$ $`=`$ $`ie[A^\mu (_\mu D^\nu Q\overline{D}_\nu ^{}D^\nu Q_\mu \overline{D}_\nu ^{})`$ (9)
$`+`$ $`(_\mu A^\nu D_\nu ^{}A^\nu _\mu D_\nu ^{})Q\overline{D}^\mu `$ (10)
$`+`$ $`D^\mu Q(A^\nu _\mu D_\nu ^{}_\mu A^\nu \overline{D}_\nu ^{}],`$ (11)
$`_{\pi \gamma DD^{}}`$ $`=`$ $`eg_{\pi DD^{}}A^\mu (D_\mu ^{}(2\stackrel{}{\tau }QQ\stackrel{}{\tau })\overline{D}`$ (12)
$`+`$ $`D(2Q\stackrel{}{\tau }\stackrel{}{\tau }Q)\overline{D}_\mu ^{})\stackrel{}{\pi },`$ (13)
$`_{\rho \gamma DD}`$ $`=`$ $`eg_{\rho DD}A^\mu D(\stackrel{}{\tau }Q+Q\stackrel{}{\tau })\overline{D}\stackrel{}{\rho }_\mu ,`$ (14)
$`_{\rho \gamma D^{}D^{}}`$ $`=`$ $`eg_{\rho D^{}D^{}}(A^\nu D_\nu ^{}(2\stackrel{}{\tau }QQ\stackrel{}{\tau })\overline{D}_\mu ^{}`$ (15)
$`+`$ $`A^\nu D_\mu ^{}(2\stackrel{}{\tau }QQ\stackrel{}{\tau })\overline{D}_\nu ^{}`$ (16)
$``$ $`A_\mu D^\nu (2\stackrel{}{\tau }QQ\stackrel{}{\tau })\overline{D}_\nu ^{})\stackrel{}{\rho }^\mu .`$ (17)
In the above, $`\stackrel{}{\tau }`$ are Pauli spin matrices, and $`\stackrel{}{\pi }`$ and $`\stackrel{}{\rho }`$ denote the pion and rho meson isospin triplet, respectively, while $`D=(D^0,D^+)`$ and $`D^{}=(D_{}^{}{}_{}{}^{0},D_{}^{}{}_{}{}^{+})`$ denote the pseudoscalar and vector charm meson doublets, respectively. The operator $`Q`$ is the diagonal charge operator with diagonal elements equal to 0 and -1.

For coupling constants in the above interaction Lagrangians, we use the following empirical values: $`g_{\pi NN}=13.5`$ , $`g_{\rho NN}=3.25`$, $`\kappa _\rho =6.1`$ , $`g_{\pi DD^{}}=5.56`$ , and $`g_{\rho DD}=2.52`$ .

The diagrams in Figs. 1, 2, and 3 can be separated to two types; one in which the photon is coupled to mesons such as the first three diagrams (denoted by (ia) to (ic) with i=1 to 8), and the other in which the photon is coupled directly to the incoming or outgoing charged nucleon. As shown later, contributions from the latter type are much smaller than those from the first type of diagrams and are thus neglected in the following calculations. We note that diagrams of the first type are similar to those for $`J/\psi `$ absorption on nucleon, which can be interpreted as absorption by the virtual pion and rho meson cloud of a nucleon. Here, they can be considered as charmed hadron production from the nucleon’s virtual meson cloud.

The amplitudes for the four processes in Fig. 1 are given by

$`_i`$ $`=`$ $`iag_{\pi NN}\overline{N}(p_3)\gamma _5N(p_1){\displaystyle \frac{1}{tm_\pi ^2}}`$ (18)
$`\times `$ $`(M_{ia}+M_{ib}+M_{ic}),`$ (19)
with $`i=1`$ to 4, while the amplitudes for the four processes in Fig. 2, 3 can be written as

$`_j`$ $`=`$ $`ag_{\rho NN}\overline{N}(p_3)\left[\gamma ^\mu +i{\displaystyle \frac{\kappa _\rho }{2m_N}}\sigma ^{\alpha \mu }(p_1p_3)_\alpha \right]`$ (20)
$`\times `$ $`N(p_1)\left[g_{\mu \nu }+{\displaystyle \frac{(p_1p_3)_\mu (p_1p_3)_\nu }{m_\rho ^2}}\right]`$ (21)
$`\times `$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{tm_\rho ^2}}(M_{ja}^\nu +M_{jb}^\nu +M_{jc}^\nu ),`$ (22)
with $`j=5`$ to 8. In the above, $`p_1`$ and $`p_3`$ are four momenta of the initial and final nucleons, respectively. The coefficient $`a`$ is, respectively, 1 and $`\sqrt{2}`$ for neutral and charged pion coupling to nucleon.

The three amplitudes $`M_{ia}`$, $`M_{ib}`$, and $`M_{ic}`$ are for the subprocess $`\pi \gamma D^{}\overline{D}`$ in Fig. 1. It can be shown that they fulfill the chiral constraint , i.e., their sum vanishes at the soft pion limit. Explicitly, they are given by

$`_{1a}`$ $`=`$ $`_{2a}`$ (23)
$`=`$ $`eg_{\pi DD^{}}(2k_1+k_3)^\mu {\displaystyle \frac{1}{tm_D^2}}`$ (24)
$`\times `$ $`(k_1k_3+k_4)^\nu \epsilon _{3\mu }\epsilon _{2\nu },`$ (25)
$`_{1b}`$ $`=`$ $`_{2b}`$ (26)
$`=`$ $`eg_{\pi DD^{}}(k_1k_4)^\alpha {\displaystyle \frac{1}{um_D^{}^2}}`$ (27)
$`\times `$ $`\left[g_{\alpha \beta }{\displaystyle \frac{(k_1k_4)_\alpha (k_1k_4)_\beta }{m_D^{}^2}}\right]`$ (28)
$`\times `$ $`[(k_2k_3)^\beta g^{\mu \nu }+(k_1+k_2+k_4)^\nu g^{\beta \mu }`$ (29)
$`+`$ $`(k_1+k_3k_4)^\mu g^{\beta \nu }]\epsilon _{3\mu }\epsilon _{2\nu },`$ (30)
$`_{1c}`$ $`=`$ $`_{2c}`$ (31)
$`=`$ $`eg_{\pi DD^{}}g^{\mu \nu }\epsilon _{3\mu }\epsilon _{2\nu },`$ (32)
$`_{3a}`$ $`=`$ $`\sqrt{2}eg_{\pi DD^{}}(2k_1+k_3)^\mu {\displaystyle \frac{1}{tm_D^2}}`$ (33)
$`\times `$ $`(k_1k_3+k_4)^\nu \epsilon _{3\mu }\epsilon _{2\nu },`$ (34)
$`_{3b}`$ $`=`$ $`\sqrt{2}eg_{\pi DD^{}}(2k_1+k_2)^\nu {\displaystyle \frac{1}{sm_\pi ^2}}`$ (35)
$`\times `$ $`(k_1+k_2+k_4)^\mu \epsilon _{3\mu }\epsilon _{2\nu },`$ (36)
$`_{3c}`$ $`=`$ $`2\sqrt{2}eg_{\pi DD^{}}g^{\mu \nu }\epsilon _{3\mu }\epsilon _{2\nu },`$ (37)
$`_{4a}`$ $`=`$ $`\sqrt{2}eg_{\pi DD^{}}(k_1k_4)^\alpha {\displaystyle \frac{1}{um_D^{}^2}}`$ (38)
$`\times `$ $`\left[g_{\alpha \beta }{\displaystyle \frac{(k_1k_4)_\alpha (k_1k_4)_\beta }{m_D^{}^2}}\right]`$ (39)
$`\times `$ $`[(k_2k_3)^\beta g^{\mu \nu }+(k_1+k_2+k_4)^\nu g^{\beta \mu }`$ (40)
$`+`$ $`(k_1+k_3k_4)^\mu g^{\beta \nu }]\epsilon _{3\mu }\epsilon _{2\nu },`$ (41)
$`_{4b}`$ $`=`$ $`\sqrt{2}eg_{\pi DD^{}}(2k_1+k_2)^\nu {\displaystyle \frac{1}{sm_\pi ^2}}`$ (42)
$`\times `$ $`(k_1+k_2+k_4)^\mu \epsilon _{3\mu }\epsilon _{2\nu },`$ (43)
$`_{4c}`$ $`=`$ $`\sqrt{2}eg_{\pi DD^{}}g^{\mu \nu }\epsilon _{3\mu }\epsilon _{2\nu },`$ (44)
where $`k_i`$ denotes the momentum of particle $`i`$ of each subprocess, and $`\epsilon _\mu `$ and $`\epsilon _\nu `$ are the polarization vector of $`\gamma `$ and $`D^{}`$, respectively. We choose the convention that particles 1 and 2 represent initial-state particles while particles 3 and 4 represent final-state ones on the left and right sides of the diagrams.

The amplitudes $`M_{ja}^\nu `$, $`M_{jb}^\nu `$, and $`M_{jc}^\nu `$ are those for the subprocesses $`\rho \gamma D\overline{D}`$ and $`\rho \gamma D^{}\overline{D}^{}`$ in Figs. 2 and 3, and they are are written explicitly as:

$`_{5a}^\mu `$ $`=`$ $`eg_{\rho DD}(k_12k_3)^\mu {\displaystyle \frac{1}{tm_D^2}}`$ (45)
$`\times `$ $`(k_1k_3+k_4)^\nu \epsilon _{2\nu },`$ (46)
$`_{5b}^\mu `$ $`=`$ $`eg_{\rho DD}(k_1+2k_4)^\mu {\displaystyle \frac{1}{um_D^2}}`$ (47)
$`\times `$ $`(k_1k_3+k_4)^\nu \epsilon _{2\nu },`$ (48)
$`_{5c}^\mu `$ $`=`$ $`2eg_{\rho DD}g^{\mu \nu }\epsilon _{2\nu },`$ (49)
$`_{6a}^\mu `$ $`=`$ $`\sqrt{2}eg_{\rho DD}(k_12k_3)^\mu {\displaystyle \frac{1}{tm_D^2}}`$ (50)
$`\times `$ $`(k_1k_3+k_4)^\nu \epsilon _{2\nu },`$ (51)
$`_{6b}^\mu `$ $`=`$ $`\sqrt{2}eg_{\rho DD}[(2k_1k_2)^\nu g^{\mu \alpha }`$ (52)
$`+`$ $`(k_1+2k_2)^\mu g^{\alpha \nu }+(k_1k_2)^\alpha g^{\mu \nu }]{\displaystyle \frac{1}{sm_\rho ^2}}`$ (53)
$`\times `$ $`\left[g_{\alpha \beta }{\displaystyle \frac{(k_1+k_2)_\alpha (k_1+k_2)_\beta }{m_\rho ^2}}\right]`$ (54)
$`\times `$ $`(k_3k_4)^\beta \epsilon _{2\nu },`$ (55)
$`_{6c}^\mu `$ $`=`$ $`\sqrt{2}eg_{\rho DD}g^{\mu \nu }\epsilon _{2\nu },`$ (56)
$`_{7a}^\mu `$ $`=`$ $`eg_{\rho D^{}D^{}}[(k_1k_3)^\alpha g^{\mu \lambda }+(2k_1k_3)^\lambda g^{\alpha \mu }`$ (57)
$`+`$ $`(2k_3k_1)^\mu g^{\alpha \lambda }]{\displaystyle \frac{1}{tm_D^{}^2}}`$ (58)
$`\times `$ $`\left[g_{\alpha \beta }{\displaystyle \frac{(k_1k_3)_\alpha (k_1k_3)_\beta }{m_D^{}^2}}\right]`$ (59)
$`\times `$ $`[2p_2^\omega g^{\beta \nu }+(k_2+k_4)^\beta g^{\nu \omega }2k_4^\nu g^{\beta \omega }]`$ (60)
$`\times `$ $`\epsilon _{2\nu }\epsilon _{3\lambda }\epsilon _{4\omega },`$ (61)
$`_{7b}^\mu `$ $`=`$ $`eg_{\rho D^{}D^{}}[(2k_1+k_4)^\omega g^{\alpha \mu }+(k_1+k_4)^\alpha g^{\mu \omega }`$ (62)
$`+`$ $`(k_12k_4)^\mu g^{\alpha \omega }]{\displaystyle \frac{1}{um_D^{}^2}}`$ (63)
$`\times `$ $`\left[g_{\alpha \beta }{\displaystyle \frac{(k_1k_4)_\alpha (k_1k_4)_\beta }{m_D^{}^2}}\right]`$ (64)
$`\times `$ $`[(k_2k_3)^\beta g^{\nu \lambda }+2k_2^\lambda g^{\beta \nu }+2k_3^\nu g^{\beta \lambda }]`$ (65)
$`\times `$ $`\epsilon _{2\nu }\epsilon _{3\lambda }\epsilon _{4\omega },`$ (66)
$`_{7c}^\mu `$ $`=`$ $`eg_{\rho D^{}D^{}}(g^{\mu \lambda }g^{\nu \omega }+g^{\mu \omega }g^{\nu \lambda }2g^{\mu \nu }g^{\lambda \omega })`$ (67)
$`\times `$ $`\epsilon _{2\nu }\epsilon _{3\lambda }\epsilon _{4\omega },`$ (68)
$`_{8a}^\mu `$ $`=`$ $`\sqrt{2}eg_{\rho D^{}D^{}}[(k_1k_3)^\alpha g^{\mu \lambda }+(2p_1p_3)^\lambda g^{\alpha \mu }`$ (69)
$`+`$ $`(2k_3k_1)^\mu g^{\alpha \lambda }]{\displaystyle \frac{1}{tm_D^{}^2}}`$ (70)
$`\times `$ $`\left[g_{\alpha \beta }{\displaystyle \frac{(k_1k_3)_\alpha (k_1k_3)_\beta }{m_D^{}^2}}\right]`$ (71)
$`\times `$ $`[2p_2^\omega g^{\beta \nu }+(k_2+k_4)^\beta g^{\nu \omega }2k_4^\nu g^{\beta \omega }]`$ (72)
$`\times `$ $`\epsilon _{2\nu }\epsilon _{3\lambda }\epsilon _{4\omega },`$ (73)
$`_{8b}^\mu `$ $`=`$ $`\sqrt{2}eg_{\rho D^{}D^{}}[(2k_1k_2)^\nu g^{\mu \alpha }+(k_1+2k_2)^\mu g^{\alpha \nu }`$ (74)
$`+`$ $`(k_1k_2)^\alpha g^{\mu \nu }]{\displaystyle \frac{1}{sm_\rho ^2}}`$ (75)
$`\times `$ $`\left[g_{\alpha \beta }{\displaystyle \frac{(k_1+k_2)_\alpha (k_1+k_2)_\beta }{m_\rho ^2}}\right]`$ (76)
$`\times `$ $`[2k_4^\lambda g^{\beta \omega }+2k_3^\omega g^{\beta \lambda }+(k_4k_3)^\beta g^{\lambda \omega }]`$ (77)
$`\times `$ $`\epsilon _{2\nu }\epsilon _{3\lambda }\epsilon _{4\omega },`$ (78)
$`_{8c}^\mu `$ $`=`$ $`\sqrt{2}eg_{\rho D^{}D^{}}(g^{\mu \lambda }g^{\nu \omega }2g^{\mu \omega }g^{\nu \lambda }+g^{\mu \nu }g^{\lambda \omega })`$ (79)
$`\times `$ $`\epsilon _{2\nu }\epsilon _{3\lambda }\epsilon _{4\omega }.`$ (80)
The cross sections for these reactions with three particles in the final state can be expressed in terms of the off-shell cross sections of the subprocesses involving two particles in the final state. Following the method of Ref.  for the reaction $`NNN\mathrm{\Lambda }K`$, the spin-averaged differential cross section for the four reactions in Fig. 1 can be written as

$`{\displaystyle \frac{d\sigma _{\gamma NND^{}\overline{D}}}{dtds_1}}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{ag_{\pi NN}^2}{32\pi ^2sp_c^2}}k\sqrt{s_1}(t){\displaystyle \frac{1}{(tm_\pi ^2)^2}}`$ (81)
$`\times `$ $`\sigma _{\pi \gamma D^{}\overline{D}}(s_1,t)|F(t)|^2,`$ (82)
while those for the two reactions in Fig. 2 are

$`{\displaystyle \frac{d\sigma _{\gamma NND\overline{D}}}{dtds_1}}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{3ag_{\rho NN}^2}{64\pi ^2sp_c^2}}k\sqrt{s_1}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{(tm_\rho ^2)^2}}[4(1+\kappa _\rho )^2`$ (83)
$`\times `$ $`(t2m_N^2)\kappa _\rho ^2{\displaystyle \frac{(4m_N^2t)^2}{2m_N^2}}+4(1+\kappa _\rho )`$ (84)
$`\times `$ $`\kappa _\rho (4m_N^2t)]\sigma _{\rho \gamma D\overline{D}}(s_1,t)|F(t)|^2.`$ (85)
In the above, $`p_c`$ is the center-of-mass momentum of $`\gamma `$ and $`N`$, $`t`$ is the squared four momentum transfer, and $`s`$ is the squared center-of-mass energy. The quantity $`s_1`$ and $`k`$ are, respectively, the squared invariant mass and center-of-mass momentum of the $`\pi `$ and $`\gamma `$ in the subprocess $`\gamma ND^{}\overline{D}N`$ or of the $`\rho `$ and $`\gamma `$ in the subprocesses $`\gamma ND\overline{D}N`$ and $`\gamma ND^{}\overline{D}^{}N`$. Cross sections for these subprocesses are obtained from the amplitudes in Eqs.(23) and (45) using the software package FORM  to evaluate the summation over the polarizations of both initial and final particles. The differential cross sections for the two reactions $`\gamma ND^{}\overline{D}^{}N`$ in Fig. 3 are similar to those for $`\gamma ND\overline{D}N`$ with $`\sigma _{\rho \gamma D\overline{D}}(s_1,t)`$ replaced by $`\sigma _{\rho \gamma D^{}\overline{D}^{}}(s_1,t)`$.

We have introduced the form factors $`F_{\pi NN}`$ and $`F_{\rho NN}`$ at the $`\pi NN`$ and $`\rho NN`$ vertices, respectively, to take into account the finite size of hadrons. As in Ref. , both are taken to have the following monopole form:

$`F(t)={\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Lambda }^2m^2}{\mathrm{\Lambda }^2t}},`$ (86)
where $`m`$ is the mass of the exchanged pion or rho meson, and $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ is a cutoff parameter. Following Ref. we take $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{\pi NN}=1.3`$ GeV and $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{\rho NN}=1.4`$ GeV. We have also introduced a universal form factor at the strong interaction vertices in the $`\pi \gamma D^{}D`$, $`\rho \gamma DD`$, and $`\rho \gamma D^{}D^{}`$ two-body subprocesses. Such a prescription guarantees the gauge invariance when all diagrams are included in each process . The form factor we include here is of the following dipole form:

$`f(𝐪^2)=\left({\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Lambda }^2}{\mathrm{\Lambda }^2+𝐪^2}}\right)^2,`$ (87)
with $`𝐪`$ denoting the three momentum of photon in the center-of-mass system. We choose the cutoff parameter $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ to be 1.45 GeV to best reproduce the data. This form is also our default choice of form factors in this paper, unless stated otherwise.

The cross sections for charmed hadron production from neutron is the same as that from proton if we neglect diagrams involving photon coupling directly to proton. The isospin-averaged cross section for the reaction $`\gamma N\overline{D}DN`$ is thus given by the sum of the cross sections for the four processes in Fig. 1, which are obtained by integrating Eq.(82) over $`t`$ and $`s_1`$. Similarly, one can obtain from Eq.(85) the isospin averaged cross sections for the reactions $`\gamma N\overline{D}D^{}N(\overline{D}^{}DN)`$ and $`\gamma N\overline{D}^{}D^{}N`$, shown respectively, in Figs. 2 and 3. The results are shown in Fig. 4 by the solid, dotted, and dashed curves, respectively, for the reactions $`\gamma N\overline{D}DN`$, $`\gamma N\overline{D}D^{}N(\overline{D}^{}DN)`$ and $`\gamma N\overline{D}^{}D^{}N`$. It is seen that the reaction $`\gamma N\overline{D}D^{}N(\overline{D}^{}DN)`$ has the largest cross section with a peak value of about 40 nb, while the reaction $`\gamma N\overline{D}DN`$ has the smallest cross section of only about 1 nb. The larger cross sections for processes involving a charmed vector meson in the final state is due to the presence of interaction vertices with three vector mesons, which have a stronger momentum dependence than vertices with fewer number of vector mesons, leading thus to a larger strength at high energies.

The above results are obtained without contributions from diagrams involving the photon coupled directly to external nucleons. These diagrams are needed to preserve the gauge invariance in each process. Their contributions are small compared to those from diagrams with the photon coupled directly to mesons. This is due to the $`s`$-channel nucleon propagator ($`1/(sm_N^2)`$) in these diagrams, which suppresses their amplitudes more than the $`t`$-channel heavy meson propagator in other as a result of the large photon energy needed to produce both the charmed and anticharmed meson pair. In the following, we demonstrate this effect by comparing the contribution due to diagram (1d) with that due to diagrams (1a)-(1c) in Fig. 1.

The amplitude for diagram (1d) in Fig. 1 can be written as

$``$ $`=`$ $`i2eg_{\pi NN}g_{\pi DD^{}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{(sm_N^2)(tm_\pi ^2)}}`$ (88)
$`\times `$ $`\overline{p}(p_3)\gamma _5(p/_1+p/_2+m_N)\gamma ^\mu p(p_1)\epsilon _\mu p_5^\nu \epsilon _\nu `$ (89)
$``$ $`2g_{\pi DD^{}}M_2p_5^\nu \epsilon _\nu ,`$ (90)
where $`p_1`$, $`p_3`$, $`p_2`$, and $`p_5`$ are the momenta of initial and final nucleons, photon, and charmed meson, respectively. The cross section due to this diagram alone is given by

$`{\displaystyle \frac{d\sigma }{dtds_1}}={\displaystyle \frac{\sqrt{s_1}}{256\pi ^2sp_c^2}}|_2|^2\mathrm{\Gamma }(s_1),`$ (91)
where again $`p_c`$ is the center-of-mass momentum of the nucleon and the photon, $`s_1`$ is the invariant mass of the $`D^{}D^+`$ pair, and $`\mathrm{\Gamma }(s_1)`$ is the decay width of the off-shell $`\pi ^0D^{}D^+`$.

The cross section due to the $`s`$channel diagram (1d) in Fig. 1 involving photon coupling directly to nucleon is shown by the dashed curve in Fig. 5 together with that coming from the pion exchange contributions (diagrams (1a)-(1c) in Fig. 1), shown by the solid curve. Form factors have been neglected in these results as we are only interested in their relative magnitude. It is seen that the contribution from the diagram with direct photon-nucleon coupling is more than two orders of magnitude smaller than that from the pion-exchange diagrams and can thus be safely neglected.

## III Photoproduction of charmed hadrons from nucleon with two-body final states

Charmed hadron can also be produced in photo-nucleon reaction from processes involving two particles in the final state, i.e., $`\gamma N\overline{D}\mathrm{\Lambda }_c`$ and $`\gamma N\overline{D}^{}\mathrm{\Lambda }_c`$, shown by diagrams in Fig. 6. The interaction Lagrangians needed to evaluate the cross sections for these reactions are:

$`_{DN\mathrm{\Lambda }_c}`$ $`=`$ $`ig_{DN\mathrm{\Lambda }_c}(\overline{N}\gamma _5\mathrm{\Lambda }_c\overline{D}+D\overline{\mathrm{\Lambda }}_c\gamma _5N),`$ (92)
$`_{D^{}N\mathrm{\Lambda }_c}`$ $`=`$ $`g_{D^{}N\mathrm{\Lambda }_c}(\overline{N}\gamma _\mu \mathrm{\Lambda }_cD^\mu +\overline{D}^\mu \overline{\mathrm{\Lambda }}_c\gamma _\mu N).`$ (93)
As in ref., we use SU(4) relations to determine the coupling constants $`g_{DN\mathrm{\Lambda }_c}`$ and $`g_{D^{}N\mathrm{\Lambda }_c}`$ in terms of known coupling constants $`g_{\pi NN}`$ and $`g_{\rho NN}`$, and they are given by

$`g_{DN\mathrm{\Lambda }_c}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{32\alpha _D}{\sqrt{3}}}g_{\pi NN}g_{\pi NN}=13.5,`$ (94)
$`g_{D^{}N\mathrm{\Lambda }_c}`$ $`=`$ $`\sqrt{3}g_{\rho NN}=5.6,`$ (95)
where $`\alpha _D=D/(D+F)0.64`$  with $`D`$ and $`F`$ being the coefficients for the usual $`D`$-type and $`F`$-type couplings. Values of these couplings constants are similar to those obtained from a QCD sum rule analysis .

The amplitudes for the two processes in Fig. 6 are

$`_9`$ $`=`$ $`(_{9a}^\mu +_{9b}^\mu )\epsilon _\mu ,`$ (96)
$`_{10}`$ $`=`$ $`(_{10a}^\mu +_{10b}^\mu )\epsilon _\mu ,`$ (97)
$`_{11}`$ $`=`$ $`(_{11a}^{\mu \nu }+_{11b}^{\mu \nu })\epsilon _\mu \epsilon _\nu ,`$ (98)
$`_{12}`$ $`=`$ $`(_{12a}^{\mu \nu }+_{12b}^{\mu \nu })\epsilon _\mu \epsilon _\nu ,`$ (99)
with $`_{9a}^\mu `$, $`_{9b}^\mu `$, $`_{10a}`$, and $`_{10c}^\mu `$ for the top four diagrams in Fig. 6, while $`_{11a}^{\mu \nu }`$, $`_{11b}^{\mu \nu }`$, $`_{12a}^{\mu \nu }`$, and $`_{12b}^{\mu \nu }`$ for for the bottom four diagrams. They are given explicitly by

$`_{9a}^\mu `$ $`=`$ $`ieg_{DN\mathrm{\Lambda }_c}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{tm_D^2}}(p_22p_4)^\mu \overline{\mathrm{\Lambda }}_c(p_3)\gamma ^5n(p_1),`$ (100)
$`_{9b}^\mu `$ $`=`$ $`ieg_{DN\mathrm{\Lambda }_c}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{um_{\mathrm{\Lambda }_c}^2}}`$ (101)
$`\times `$ $`\overline{\mathrm{\Lambda }}_c(p_3)\gamma ^\mu (p/_1p/_4+m_{\mathrm{\Lambda }_c})\gamma ^5n(p_1),`$ (102)
$`_{10a}^\mu `$ $`=`$ $`ieg_{DN\mathrm{\Lambda }_c}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{sm_N^2}}`$ (103)
$`\times `$ $`\overline{\mathrm{\Lambda }}_c(p_3)\gamma ^5(p/_1+p/_2+m_N)\gamma ^\mu p(p_1),`$ (104)
$`_{10b}^\mu `$ $`=`$ $`ieg_{DN\mathrm{\Lambda }_c}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{um_{\mathrm{\Lambda }_c}^2}}`$ (105)
$`\times `$ $`\overline{\mathrm{\Lambda }}_c(p_3)\gamma ^\mu (p/_1p/_4+m_{\mathrm{\Lambda }_c})\gamma ^5p(p_1),`$ (106)
$`_{11a}^{\mu \nu }`$ $`=`$ $`eg_{D^{}N\mathrm{\Lambda }_c}\overline{\mathrm{\Lambda }}_c(p_3)\gamma ^\alpha n(p_1){\displaystyle \frac{1}{tm_D^{}^2}}`$ (107)
$`\times `$ $`\left[g_{\alpha \beta }+{\displaystyle \frac{(p_1p_3)_\alpha (p_1p_3)_\beta }{m_D^{}^2}}\right]`$ (108)
$`\times `$ $`[2p_2^\nu g^{\beta \mu }(p_2+p_4)^\beta g^{\mu \nu }+2p_4^\mu g^{\beta \nu }],`$ (109)
$`_{11b}^{\mu \nu }`$ $`=`$ $`eg_{D^{}N\mathrm{\Lambda }_c}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{um_{\mathrm{\Lambda }_c}^2}}`$ (110)
$`\times `$ $`\overline{\mathrm{\Lambda }}_c(p_3)\gamma ^\mu (p/_1p/_4+m_{\mathrm{\Lambda }_c})\gamma ^\nu n(p_1),`$ (111)
$`_{12a}^{\mu \nu }`$ $`=`$ $`eg_{D^{}N\mathrm{\Lambda }_c}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{sm_N^2}}`$ (112)
$`\times `$ $`\overline{\mathrm{\Lambda }}_c(p_3)\gamma ^\nu (p/_1+p/_2+m_N)\gamma ^\mu p(p_1),`$ (113)
$`_{12b}^{\mu \nu }`$ $`=`$ $`eg_{D^{}N\mathrm{\Lambda }_c}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{um_{\mathrm{\Lambda }_c}^2}}`$ (114)
$`\times `$ $`\overline{\mathrm{\Lambda }}_c(p_3)\gamma ^\mu (p/_1p/_4+m_{\mathrm{\Lambda }_c})\gamma ^\nu p(p_1).`$ (115)
Here, $`p_1`$, $`p_2`$, $`p_3`$, and $`p_4`$ denote the momentum of $`\gamma `$, $`N`$, $`\overline{D}(\overline{D}^{})`$, and $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_c`$, respectively.

The spin-averaged differential cross sections for the four processes in Fig. 6 are then

$`{\displaystyle \frac{d\sigma _{\gamma N\overline{D}\mathrm{\Lambda }_c}}{dt}}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{256\pi sp_c^2}}|_i|^2|f(𝐪^2)|^2,,`$ (116)
where $`i=9,10,11,12`$ for the the four reactions $`\gamma nD^{}\mathrm{\Lambda }_c^+`$, $`\gamma p\overline{D}^0\mathrm{\Lambda }_c^+`$, $`\gamma nD^{}\mathrm{\Lambda }_c^+`$, and $`\gamma D^{}\mathrm{\Lambda }_c^+`$.

The isospin-averaged cross sections for the two reactions $`\gamma N\overline{D}\mathrm{\Lambda }_c`$ and $`\gamma N\overline{D}\mathrm{\Lambda }_c`$ can be obtained from the above cross sections, and they are given by

$`\sigma _{\gamma N\overline{D}\mathrm{\Lambda }_c}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}(\sigma _{\gamma nD^{}\mathrm{\Lambda }_c^+}+\sigma _{\gamma p\overline{D}^0\mathrm{\Lambda }_c^+}),`$ (117)
$`\sigma _{\gamma N\overline{D}^{}\mathrm{\Lambda }_c}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}(\sigma _{\gamma nD^{}\mathrm{\Lambda }_c^+}+\sigma _{\gamma p\overline{D}^0\mathrm{\Lambda }_c^+}).`$ (118)
Taking the form factor at interaction vertices to be of the dipole type as in Eq. (87) and with a cutoff parameter $`\mathrm{\Lambda }=1.45`$ GeV, which is chosen to reproduce the experimentally observed relative strength between two-body and three-body decay final states in photoproduction of charmed hadrons on nucleon , the cross sections for the reactions $`\gamma N\overline{D}\mathrm{\Lambda }_c`$ (dashed curve) and $`\gamma N\overline{D}^{}\mathrm{\Lambda }_c`$ (solid curve) are shown in Fig. 7 as functions of total center-of-mass energy. It is seen that both cross sections are large with a peak value of about 30 nb for $`\gamma N\overline{D}\mathrm{\Lambda }_c`$ and about 50 nb for $`\gamma N\overline{D^{}}\mathrm{\Lambda }_c`$.

## IV Total Cross Section for charmed hadron production in photon-nucleon reaction

The total cross section for photoproduction of charmed hadrons on nucleon is given by the sum of the cross sections for two-body and three-body final states. In Fig. 8, we show the total cross section (solid curve) together with that for two-body final state (dotted curve) and three-body final state (dashed curve). It is seen that two-body final states involving $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_c`$ and a charmed meson dominates at low energy, while the three-body final state involving a nucleon as well as a charmed and anticharmed meson pair is more important at high energies. The two have comparable magnitudes around center-of-mass energy of about 5.7 GeV. This is consistent with the experimental data at 6 GeV , which shows that the final state with a $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_c`$ constitutes about 35% of the total cross section.

Charm production from photo-nucleon reaction can be estimated using the leading-order perturbative QCD . The cross section in this approach is given by

$`\sigma ^{\gamma N}(\nu )={\displaystyle _{2m_c^2/\nu }^1}𝑑x\sigma ^{\gamma g}(\nu x)g(x),`$ (119)
where $`m_c`$ is the charm quark mass, $`g(x)`$ is the gluon distribution function inside the nucleon, and $`\nu =pp_\gamma `$ with $`p`$ and $`p_\gamma `$ being the momenta of the incoming nucleon and photon. The cross section $`\sigma ^{\gamma g}(\omega )`$ is that for charm-anticharm quark production from the leading order photon-gluon scattering, i.e.,

$`\sigma ^{\gamma g\overline{c}c}(\omega )`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{2\pi \alpha _s\alpha }{9}}{\displaystyle \frac{4}{\omega ^2}}[(1+{\displaystyle \frac{4m^2}{\omega ^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{8m_c^2}{\omega ^4}})`$ (120)
$`\times `$ $`\mathrm{log}{\displaystyle \frac{1+\sqrt{1\frac{4m_c^2}{\omega ^2}}}{1+\sqrt{1\frac{4m_c^2}{\omega ^2}}}}`$ (121)
$``$ $`(1+{\displaystyle \frac{4m_c^2}{\omega ^2}})\sqrt{1{\displaystyle \frac{4m_c^2}{\omega ^2}}}],`$ (122)
where $`\omega ^2=2p_gp_\gamma `$, with the gluon momentum denoted by $`p_g`$.

Using $`m_c=1.3`$ GeV and the leading order MRST 2001 parameterization of the gluon distribution function in nucleon , we have calculated the photo charm production cross section on nucleon using the LO QCD formula, and the result is shown Fig. 9 by the dashed curve together with that from the effective hadronic model (solid curve) and the available experimental data (open circles). We see that the LO QCD result reproduces the data at 6 GeV and at higher energies. However, the QCD prediction below 6 GeV falls well below the results from the effective hadronic model. It is known that the QCD formula for photoproduction of heavy quarks should work best when the momenta involved are of order the heavy quark mass $`m_c`$. Below this momentum and near the threshold energy, large logarithms will appear in the perturbative QCD approach and spoil its convergence . At these energies, our phenomenological hadronic approach should be more reliable as the cross section is dominated by two-body final states with no additional contribution to cause any large correction. On the other hand, the results from the hadronic model at higher energies fall short of the experimental data. This is expected because at these energies, contributions from four-body final state and from the exchange of heavier mesons will become important. At these higher energies, perturbative QCD calculations should be a more efficient way for determining the cross section for photo charm production than adding new ingredients into our phenomenological hadronic model.

## V summary and discussions

In summary, the total cross section for charmed hadron production in photo-nucleon reaction is evaluated in an effective hadronic model. This model is based on a gauged SU(4) flavor symmetric Lagrangian with the photon introduced as a $`U_{\mathrm{em}}(1)`$ gauged particle. The symmetry breaking effect is taken into account via using empirical hadron masses and coupling constants. Form factors of the monopole type are introduced at interaction vertices. This hadronic model has been previously used to evaluate the dissociation cross section of $`J/\psi `$ by hadrons. For photo production of charmed hadrons on nucleon, we have included both two-body final states involving a $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_c`$ and a charmed meson as well as three-body final states involving a nucleon and a charmed and anticharmed meson pair. It is found that reactions with two-body final states dominate the production cross section at low center-of-mass energies while reactions with three-body states are more important at high center-of-mass energies. Using cut-off parameters in the form factors from previous studies of $`J/\psi `$ absorption by hadrons, the model reproduces the lowest available experimental data at center-of-mass energy of 6 GeV. Our results thus again confirm the validity of the effective hadron model in previous studies and provide a useful model for further studies of reactions involving heavy quarks at low and near threshold energies.

## acknowledgment

This paper is based on work supported by the National Science Foundation under Grant No. PHY-0098805 and the Welch Foundation under Grant No. A-1358. SHL is also supported in part by the KOSEF under Grant No. 1999-2-111-005-5 and by the Korea Research Foundation under Grant No. KRF-2002-015-CP0074.


format: text

text:
# Automated Determination of Stellar Parameters from Simulated Dispersed Images for DIVA

## 1 Introduction

The DIVA satellite was proposed in 1996 by a German consortium of astronomical institutes (Bastian et al. 1996, Röser et al. 1997) and is currently foreseen for launch in 2006. DIVA will measure the positions, brightnesses and proper motions of some 35 million stars. The scientific goal is to study the Milky Way and to improve the calibration of stellar properties and parameters. This mission follows up on the HIPPARCOS satellite which measured parallaxes for 100 000 stars. For about 20 000 of these stars, the accuracy in parallax was better than 10%. With the DIVA satellite this number of stars will be increased by at least a factor of 25 (Röser 1999).

DIVA will perform an all-sky survey with a limiting visual magnitude of $`V15.5`$ mag. Note that every observed star will be measured about 120 times in the course of the mission. The stated magnitude limits refer to the combined images of all single measurements. The measurements include the precise determination of positions, trigonometric parallaxes, proper motions, colours and magnitudes. For about 13 million stars, spectrophotometric data will also be obtained down to a visual magnitude of $`V13.5`$. An additional UV telescope will perform photometry in two spectral ranges adjacent to the Balmer jump.

The DIVA survey represents a large scale and deep astrometric and photometric survey of the local part in our Galaxy. The importance of these data to modern astrophysics will be significant, with applications ranging from stellar structure and evolution to cosmological aspects. Examples are a precise determination of the luminosity function in the solar neighbourhood, a better understanding of the structure and formation of our galaxy, the estimation of the amount of dark matter as well as a better calibration of the cosmological distance ladder (Röser 1999).

After the mission the photometric and spectrophotometric images will be used to obtain the brightness, the colour and the dispis for the stars. The dispis will allow to derive the astrophysically relevant parameters $`T_{\mathrm{eff}}`$, $`\mathrm{log}g`$, \[M/H\] and $`E(BV)`$.

Especially the derivation of $`\mathrm{log}g`$ is of importance for objects too distant to result in an accurate parallax. With these objects in mind, we have carried out the present study. We will demonstrate that the essential parameters of the stars can be retrieved with a reasonable level of accuracy from the dispis alone. We will show that astrophysical parameters can be well derived down to the survey limit, perhaps even adequately for stars 1 to 2 magnitudes fainter. There are good scientific arguments to reach fainter in selected fields, see e.g. Salim et al. (2002).

## 2 DIVA DISPIS

### 2.1 The concept of a DISPI

The DIVA satellite is not only unique in its applications and abilities but also in the way it records spectra. DIVA will use a grating system yielding a dispersion of $``$ 200nm/mm on the focal plane with a total efficiency of about 60%. For astrometric and other reasons, the resulting (spectral) orders of the grating are not separated. Thus “classical” spectrophotometry will not be obtained. Instead, the detector will record a pixel related intensity function for each star, in which all orders (and thus wavelengths) overlap. Such a one-dimensional position-coded intensity distribution is called dispi (DISPersed Intensity). Fig. 1 shows the position-coded wavelength of the grating’s orders. One can see that the resolution of the second and third orders increases by factors of two and three relative to the first order one, respectively. In the cross-dispersion direction, there are physical pixels while in the direction of dispersion there will be on-chip binning, resulting in “effective pixels”. One such effective pixel corresponds to about 11.6 nm in the first order.

The maximum transmission of the first order is at about 750 nm (see Fig. 2), while that of the second and third orders are at about 380 and 250 nm respectively (see also Scholz 1998, Scholz 2000).

### 2.2 Dealing with DISPIs

Given the nature of the dispis, a classical spectrophotometric analysis – like line and continuum fitting – to derive astrophysical parameters is cumbersome. We will show that by training Artificial Neural Networks (ANNs) on simulated dispis, we can readily access this information without any further pre-processing of the signal. Using dispis from calibration stars, i.e. stars with known physical and apparent properties, we would initially build up a standard set of dispi data. The automated classification technique as developed will then use this library. The calibration could be iteratively improved using dispis and their parametrization results obtained during the mission. Note that in these simulations, we did not use absolute fluxes as they will be available from the mission (see below). In this work, only the shape of a dispi and its line features were used for tests to determine basic stellar parameters.

Typical dispis can be seen in Fig. 3 and Fig. 4 for a cool and a hot star, respectively. One can see that the first, second and third orders contribute different amounts to the total light in a dispi for different temperatures. The first order’s transmission maximum is at about 700 nm while the second and third orders contribute mostly at shorter wavelengths. Thus, for the cooler star, the second order contributes less to the dispi in the case of the bluer, hotter star. The third order’s contribution becomes negligible for low temperatures. Note that the “continuum” of a dispi is mainly defined by the first and partly by the second order. For a hot star, spectral line features are essentially only visible in the second and third orders due to their two- and threefold higher resolution. Only for strong molecular bands in very cool stars are features resolved in the first order.

The signal-to-noise ratio of a single dispi as measured from the 10 central pixels around effective pixel position 60 is shown for different visual magnitudes and temperatures in Table 1.

## 3 Artificial Neural Networks

Neural networks have proven useful in a number of scientific disciplines for interpolating multidimensional data, and thus providing a nonlinear mapping between an input domain (in this case the dispis) and an output domain (the stellar parameters). For an overview of Artifical Neural Networks (ANNs) and their application in astronomy for stellar classification see, for example, Bailer-Jones (2002). The software used in this work is that of Bailer-Jones (1998).

A network consists of an input layer, one or two hidden layers and an output layer. Each layer is made up of several nodes. All the nodes in one layer are connected to all the nodes in the preceding and/or following layers. These connections have adaptable “weights”, so that each node performs a weighted sum of all its inputs and passes this sum through a nonlinear transfer function. That weighted sum is then passed on to the next layer. Before the network can be used for parametrisation, it needs to be trained, meaning the weights have to be set to their appropriate values to perform the desired mapping. In this process, dispis together with known stellar parameters as target values are presented to the network. From these data, the optimum weights are determined by iteratively adjusting the weights between the layers to minimize an output error, i.e. the discrepancy between the targets and the network outputs. This is performed by a multidimensional numerical minimization, in this case with the conjugate gradients method. When this minimization converges, the weights are fixed and the network can be used in its “application” phase: now, only the dispi input flux vector is presented and the network’s outputs produce the stellar parameters of these dispis. Since we used only the central 51 effective pixels of the dispis (range 30 to 80, see Fig. 3 and 4), the input layer of the network was always made up of the same number of nodes, i.e. 51. We found that the performance was best when using two hidden layers, each containing 7 nodes. More nodes did not improve the result significantly but increased the training time considerably. With four output parameters this network then contains $`517+77+74=434`$ weights (plus 18 bias weights).

Since we wanted to classify dispis solely based on their shapes, the absolute flux information was removed by area-normalizing each dispi, i.e. each flux bin of a given dispi was divided by the total number of counts in that dispi. Given the non-uniform distribution of the training data over $`T_{\mathrm{eff}}`$, we classified dispis in terms of log $`T_{\mathrm{eff}}`$ instead of $`T_{\mathrm{eff}}`$.

Note that, in our tests, we have not included distance information as it eventually might be done using DIVA parallaxes, since the present goal was to test the retrieval of stellar parameters from dispis only.

The parametrization errors given below are the average (over some set of dispis) errors for each parameter, i.e.

$$A=\frac{1}{N}\underset{p=1}{\overset{N}{}}\left|C(p)T(p)\right|$$
(1)
where $`p`$ denotes the $`p^{\mathrm{th}}`$ dispi and $`T`$ is the target (or “true”) value for this parameter. Since the network’s function approximation can depend on the initial settings of the weights, it is sometimes recommended to use a “committee” of several networks with identical topologies but different initializations. The quantity $`C(p)`$ is the classification output averaged over a committee of three networks.

## 4 Data simulation

### 4.1 Models of DISPIs

The model of the spectrophotometric output from DIVA used in this work was developed by Scholz (1998). This software requires a spectral energy distribution as input and creates a two-dimensional signal output image on the detector, containing the dispersed intensity. These images have 114$`\times `$150 pixels where the latter number, refering to the dispersion direction, is in effective pixels and the former number, refering to the scanning direction is in physical pixels. Fig. 5 shows such an image. Ultimately, only a narrow window around the dispi will be read from the focal plane data stream and trasmitted to ground, the so-called Spectroscopic (SC) window.

As input spectra we used synthetic spectra from Lejeune et al. (1997) and Lejeune et al. (1998). In total there were about 5600 spectra covering a parameter grid with 68 values for $`T_{\mathrm{eff}}`$ between 2000 K and 50000 K (in steps of 200 K for the low temperature star, and 2500 K for the high temperature stars), 19 possible values for $`\mathrm{log}g`$ ranging from $`1.02`$$`\mathrm{log}g`$$`5.5`$ in steps of approx. 0.1 to 0.3 dex and 13 values for \[M/H\] with $`5`$\[M/H\]$`1`$ in steps of 0.5 and 0.1 dex. Note that in our tests there were no input data for metallicities in the range from $``$2.5 to $``$0.3 dex.111In the meantime we started simulations with a set of spectra with a complete range of metallicities.

The obvious advantages of using synthetic spectra are the complete wavelength range from 200 to 1200 nm and the large number of spectra over a large parameter space. We are currently constructing a library of (previously published) real stellar spectra. However, since it combines spectra from many different available catalogues, there is a considerable heterogeneity among these data. Moreover, few stars have been observed with the desired wavelength range from the UV to the IR.

Interstellar extinction was modelled by using a synthetic extinction curve for $`R=3.1`$ given as $`\frac{A(\lambda )}{E(BV)}`$ versus $`\lambda `$. We used the extinction curve from Fitzpatrick (1999), simulating 7 different extinction values in steps of 0.15 and 0.2 in the range $`0.0`$$`E(BV)`$$`1.0`$ mag. Note that the zeroth order was omitted in this and all other simulations, so that we only worked with dispersed images made up of the first to third spectral order. Since the data were area-normalized before passing them through the neural network, the magnitude information of the zeroth order is lost anyway. For the simulation of the UV-telescope (see below), the same extinction curve was applied. This procedure was done for five different visual magnitudes in the range from $`8`$V$`12`$ mag.

Noise was added to these two-dimensional intensity distributions by passing them through another software tool developed by Ralf Scholz. Here, a mean sky backround of $`sky=0.04`$e-/(pix s) and a dark current of $`dark=2`$e-/(pix s) were added with additional source and sky Poisson noise. The CCD’s read out noise was 2 e-/eff.pix.

The size of the SC window to be cut from the on-board data stream around the dispi is crucial as it determines the data rate which is in turn related to the satellite’s overall performance: A smaller window permits a larger number of SC windows (objects) to be transmitted. This would, for example, permit a fainter magnitude limit. The optimum window size, i.e. the window around a dispersed image with the highest amount of important and lowest amount of redundant information, was investigated in earlier studies. Concerning the window size in the cross dispersion direction it was found that the innermost 7 pixel are sufficient (Hilker et al. 2001) in terms of highest S/N. However, due to the satellite’s intrinsic attitude uncertainty it is required that the smallest acceptable window size in the scanning direction be 12 pixel (see Bastian & Schilbach 2001). For our studies we therefore summed up the TDI-rows over the innermost 13 rows (6 pixels in each direction about the central row). Future work will use a profile fit to obtain the stellar intensity.

The optimum size in the dispersion direction was evaluated by S/N studies and the (spectral) information content. This amount of information was measured by the ability of Neural Networks to determine the stellar parameters $`T_{\mathrm{eff}}`$, $`\mathrm{log}g`$ and \[M/H\] for different ranges of dispis. It was found (Willemsen et al. 2001) that these parameters can be adequately retrieved from approximately 45 effective pixels around the maximum intensity in the dispis (which is at about effective pixel 60). However, since these earlier studies included only dispis with $`T_{\mathrm{eff}}`$$``$ 4000 K and since the overall intensity distribution moves to smaller effective pixel values for lower temperatures, we chose the range from 30 to 80 effective pixels in this work. This should also be appropriate for very red objects like L and M dwarfs with $`T_{\mathrm{eff}}`$$``$ 1200–4000 K.

For further processing, the simulated sky was subtracted from the dispersed image by evaluating the background level from a single column in scanning direction next to the dispersed image.

The UV imaging telescope will make use of the same type of CCD’s as the main instrument. The UV magnitudes in the two different passbands next to the Balmer jump were calculated from the same synthetic spectra as described above, simply by integrating the flux in the ranges from 310 to 360 nm and 380 to 410 nm. Of course, the true filters will not have exactly square transmission curves, but this approximation is sufficient for a first analysis of the influence of the UV channel. The two UV flux values were fed into the network in three different ways. First, we calculated the $`asinh`$ of the flux ratio, i.e. $`asinh(UV_{\mathrm{short}}/UV_{\mathrm{long}}`$) (note that the $`asinh`$ \- function is not undefined for negative values, in contrast to the log-function. Negative values might occur due to noise for very low temperature stars with almost no flux in the UV). This ratio is designed to be sensitive to the Balmer jump thus yielding additional information about gravity and temperature. Second, we summed up the intensity in a dispi in the range 70 to 80 effective pixel ($`_{i=70}^{80}I_i`$) and calculated the ratios ($`UV_{\mathrm{short}}/_{i=70}^{80}I_i`$) and ($`UV_{\mathrm{long}}/_{i=70}^{80}I_i`$). Since the first order’s contribution in the selected effective pixel range corresponds to a wavelength range from about 550 to 600 nm (see Fig. 1), these ratios should be a good measure of extinction due to the long “lever” ranging from the UV to the visual/red part of the spectrum.

### 4.2 Noise in single DISPIs versus end of mission stacked DISPIs

The results reported in this paper (Sect. 6) have been obtained using *single* dispis. However, by the end of the mission, DIVA will have imaged each star about 120 times. Thus the final signal-to-noise ratio for any given magnitude will be much better than from a single measurement. Therefore, the parametrization performance will also be improved or, equivalently, will be achieved at a fainter magnitude. We calculate the final S/N from a sum of 100 two-dimensional intensity distributions. From the ratio of this final S/N to the single dispi S/N, we can find the equivalent magnitude difference which gives the magnitude to which our parametrization results for a single dispi can be applied to, without having to do a set of separate simulations on summed dispis. The resulting $`\mathrm{\Delta }V`$ is given in Fig. 6 (see further Sect. 6). We see, for example, that a dispi made up of one-hundred frames each with $`V=14`$ mag has the same S/N as a single dispi of a star with magnitude $`V=10.8`$ mag. Unless stated otherwise, all results below will refer to end-of-mission data quality.

## 5 Preparing the ANN input data

The ensemble of dispis was divided into several smaller samples with different temperature ranges. We chose seven different ranges with a broad distinction between low - (the *L-samples*), mid - (*M-samples*) and high temperatures (*H-samples*). The abbreviations as stated in Table 2 are used throughout this work. The numbers in the last column show the total number of dispis in the training set in this temperature interval for the case without and with extinction included (approximately the same number of dispis in each temperature range was used in the application set.)

We found that the separation into such small temperature regions yielded improved parametrization results. This is understandable as the classification results for the stellar parameters, especially $`\mathrm{log}g`$ and \[M/H\], depend upon the presence of spectral features in a dispi which are also closely related to the temperature of a star. This effect was also found in Weaver & Torres-Dodgen (1997), using spectra in the near-infrared and classifying them in terms of MK stellar types and luminosity classes. For our ANN work we chose simple temperature ranges, also aiming at database subsamples of similar size. Though some of the intervals roughly correspond to the temperatures found in certain MK classes which are characterized by certain line-ratios, i.e. common physical characteristics, the chosen distinction was motivated to allow for a reasonable training time for the networks. Another reason was to see what can be learned from dispis in different temperature regimes in principle. The mid-temperature samples (*M*-samples) were defined for the range in which the Balmer jump and the H-lines (e.g. Hβ) change their meaning as indicators for temperature and surface gravity (see e.g. Napiwotzki et al. 1993). Under real conditions one would have to employ a broad classifier to first separate dispis into smaller (possibly overlapping) temperature ranges. This could be also based on neural networks, but also on other methods, such as minimum distance methods. Each temperature sample was finally divided into two *disjoint* parts, the training- and the application data. This means that our classification results (see Sect. 6) are from dispis in the gaps of our training grid.

The generalization performance of a network or its ability to classify previously unseen data is influenced by three factors: The size of the training set (and how representative it is), the architecture of the network and the physical complexity of the specific problem, which also includes the presence of noise. Though there are distribution-free, worst-case formulae for estimating the minimum size of the training set (based on the so called VC dimension, see also Haykin 1999), these are often of little value in practical problems. As a rule of thumb, it is sometimes stated (Duda et al. 2000) that there should be (W $``$ 10) different training samples in the training set, W denoting the total number of free parameters (i.e. weights) in the network. In our network without extinction there were 452 weights. Thus, in some cases, there were fewer training samples than free parameters. However, we found good generalization performance (see Sect. 6 and results therein). This may be due both to (1) the “similarity” of the dispis in a specific $`T_{\mathrm{eff}}`$ range, giving rise to a rather smooth (well-behaved) input-output function to be approximated, and (2) redundancy in the input space. Both give rise to a smaller number of effective free parameters in the network.

We also tested whether there are significant differences between determining each parameter separately in different networks and determining all parameters simultaneously. In the first case each network would have only one ouput node while in the latter case the network had multiple outputs. If the parameters ($`T_{\mathrm{eff}}`$, $`\mathrm{log}g`$ etc.) were independent of each other, one could train a network for each parameter separately. However, we know that the stellar parameters influence a stellar energy distribution simultaneously at least for certain parameter ranges, (e.g. hot stars show metal lines less clearly than cool stars). Also, for specific spectral features, changes in the chemical composition \[M/H\] can sometimes mimic gravity effects (see for example Gray 1992). Varying extinction can cause changes in the slope of a stellar energy distribution which are similar to those resulting from a different temperature.

Recently, Snider et al. (2001) determined stellar parameters for low-metallicity stars from stellar spectra (wavelength range from 3800 to 4500 Å). They reported better classification results when training networks on each parameter separately. We tested several network topologies with the number of output nodes ranging from 1 to 3 (in case of extinction from 1 to 4) in different combinations of the parameters. It was found that single output networks did not improve the results. We therefore classified all parameters simultaneously.

## 6 Results

In this section we report the results from our parameter determination. In order to appreciate the results one has to realize that the effects of $`T_{\mathrm{eff}}`$, $`\mathrm{log}g`$ and \[M/H\] on a spectrum differ significantly in magnitude. The strongest signal is that of temperature (the Planck function for black bodies). The much weaker signal is that of $`\mathrm{log}g`$, present in the width of spectral lines but only weakly in the continuum. Metallicity is a very weak signal visible in individual spectral lines or perhaps in broader opacity structures (such as G-band or molecular bands). However, in a dispi essentially all line structure is washed out. These general aspects can also be found in Gray (1992). For more see Sect. 7.

The errors given are the average errors as in Eq. (1). $`T_{\mathrm{eff}}`$ was classified in terms of log $`T_{\mathrm{eff}}`$ but for better understanding, the resulting errors were transformed to give the *fractional* error in $`T_{\mathrm{eff}}`$. These fractional errors are stated throughout this paper.

The networks had the same overall topology for all tests, though the number of inputs naturally was three larger for the case with UV information. We did not tune the networks to the very best performance possible. Tests showed that results in individual $`T_{\mathrm{eff}}`$-ranges could be improved through adjustments of several free parameters in the networks (e.g. the number of hidden nodes, number of iterations etc.). In some cases, we had to adjust some of these parameters, for example in the cases that the networks did not converge properly. However, such individual tests are very time-consuming. For the purpose of this paper, we used one topology.

Fig. 7 shows the classification results for the stellar parameters $`T_{\mathrm{eff}}`$, $`\mathrm{log}g`$ and \[M/H\] in case of no extinction, while Fig. 8 presents the results for simulations with extinction included. For each plot, the left column shows the results when UV data were included, while the right column refers to the cases without additional UV data. The upper magnitude scale shows the visual magnitudes for a single detection, whereas the lower magnitude scale is relevant for a sum of 100 dispis, representative of end-of-mission quality data (see Fig. 6).

As a comparison, we tested the performances of random, i.e. untrained, networks. These are presented in Table 3. If trained networks give parameters with uncertainites larger than the values listed here, those parameter values are not meaningful. The corresponding error for $`E(BV)`$ was about 0.25 mag for all temperature ranges and magnitudes.

A variation in \[M/H\] changes a dispi only very subtly for higher temperature stars due to the simple fact that metallicity features are very weak in the energy distribution of hotter stars.

## 7 Discussion and conclusions

As can be seen from Fig. 7 and 8 our results show interesting trends related with the temperature of the stars. In general, temperature is the dominating factor for the shape of and even the details in a spectral energy distribution. Overall, $`T_{\mathrm{eff}}`$ can be retrieved to very acceptable accuracy, even without additional UV information: the classification is better than 10 % even for very faint stars ($`V=14`$ mag, no extinction included: through this section the V magnitude refers to end-of-mission quality data). Including UV fluxes improves the $`T_{\mathrm{eff}}`$ parameter results most noticeably for hot stars ($`T_{\mathrm{eff}}`$$`>`$ 9000 K) and here especially for the fainter ones. For example, in case of no extinction, the error for dispis with $`V=14`$ mag in the $`T_{\mathrm{eff}}`$ range 12000–20000 K (H1 sample) drops from 5 % to about 3 % when the UV data are included. When extinction is included, the temperature error drops from 9 % to about 4 % for this temperature range at this magnitude. Though the information in the short wavelength range is already available in the dispi, the higher sensitivity of the UV telescope obviously contributes essential information.

Concerning $`\mathrm{log}g`$ we see from the figures that the classification performance can be improved when additional UV information is included. For example, in case of no extinction and for temperatures in the range 8000 K $``$ $`T_{\mathrm{eff}}`$ $`<`$ 10000 K (M1) and visual magniude $`V=14`$, the error in $`\mathrm{log}g`$ reduces from about 0.4 to 0.15 dex with additional UV information. At this magnitude but for temperatures in the range 6000 K $``$ $`T_{\mathrm{eff}}`$ $`<`$ 8000 K (L3), the error reduces considerably from about 0.85 dex to 0.15 dex. These results emphasize the benefit of UV telescope data in the classification process. In general, the $`\mathrm{log}g`$ results are poorer for temperatures in the range 4000 K $``$ $`T_{\mathrm{eff}}`$ $`<`$ 6000 K (L2 sample) when compared to other ranges. This is understandable since in this temperature range hardly any atomic/molecular signatures sensitive to the density (and thus $`\mathrm{log}g`$) of the gases in a stellar atmosphere are present. In contrast, for the very low temperature ranges the numerous mostly molecular spectral features provide the information about the density of the atmospheric gases. For the higher temperatures the Balmer jump provides still gravity information.

Metallicity is the most difficult parameter to derive from dispis. This was to be expected: In data with such low spectral resolution all details of spectral line information, and thus of metal abundances, are lost. In Figs. 7 and 8 only the classification results for metallicities in the range $``$0.3 dex to 1.0 dex are shown. This is due to a lack of input data in the metallicity range from $``$2.5 dex to $``$0.3 dex (see above). Very low metallicities (\[M/H\] $``$ $``$2.5 dex) make only a very small imprint on a dispi such that the classification almost fails completely at these resolutions, except for very bright, cool stars ($`T_{\mathrm{eff}}`$ $``$ 4000 K). The results for metallicities in the analysed metallicity range are reasonably good even for low magnitudes (better than about 0.3 dex for $`V14`$ mag, no extinction). When extinction is included, the metallicity performance declines considerably, except for the very cool objects ($`T_{\mathrm{eff}}`$ $`<`$ 4000 K, L1 sample) the metallicity of which can be determined to better than 0.3 dex for all simulated magnitudes. For dispis in the temperature range 6000 K $``$ $`T_{\mathrm{eff}}`$ $`<`$ 7000 K ($`L_3`$) we see that the error can be reduced from about 0.45 dex to 0.3 dex (no extinction) and from about 0.8 dex to 0.6 dex (with extinction) when the UV information is included.

Extinction is not easy to be retrieved solely from the shape of a dispi, since its overall effect mimics, to some extent, that of temperature. However, as can be seen from the figures, the determination of extinction improves when the UV information is included. This was to be expected since the UV data gives the strength of the Balmer jump, giving $`T_{\mathrm{eff}}`$ information unblurred by extinction.

One may ask whether the accuracy of the parameters derived would be better when working with the single orders of the DIVA dispersed image. We have tested this for a limited number of parameter combinations. We generally found that for brighter objects ($`V13`$ mag) the accuracy is improved when using the single orders and then only by a small amount (in the range 30 to 80 effective pixels). This might be surprising at first but it is understandable since for fainter objects, using the signal in a single order, deteriorates the S/N, so we find a poorer result from the parameter extraction routine. Apart from these results, to obtain the separate order’s signals would require a deconconvolution of the dispi which in itself leads to increased uncertainty in the intensities. Moreover, a deconvolution requires knowledge of the nature of the objects so there is no guarantee that this process will yield unique results. Since DIVA will not have separate order images we have not pursued this aspect further.

Several neural network approaches to stellar parametrization have been reported in astronomy. A comparison with those would have to address at least two aspects, such as nature of the type of network and characteristics of the data used. The networks may indeed be very different in structure such as learning and regularization technique and especially topology (compare e.g. Weaver & Torres-Dodgen 1995, Snider et al. 2001 and this work). But because in all these cases the data were of very different nature (e.g. different resolutions and number of input flux bins), a general comparison of the results is not really possible. A few remarks can be made nevertheless.

Projects to obtain MK classifications normally use data in the wavelength range from 3800 to 5200 Å with high spectral resolution of about 2 to 3 Å (see e.g. Bailer-Jones et al. 1998). Weaver & Torres-Dodgen (1995) and Weaver & Torres-Dodgen (1997) classified stars in terms of MK classes in the visual to near-infrared wavelength range 5800-8900 Å with a resolution of 15 Å. However, even the resolution of these spectra is still much better (by a factor of approx. three) than the “best” one of dispis which is about 40 Å in the low efficiency third order. We would expect such resolutions to give better precision for spectral type or $`T_{\mathrm{eff}}`$ as well as for line sensitive parameters ($`\mathrm{log}g`$ and \[M/H\]) than with dispis on account of the higher resolution. Snider et al. (2001) recently classified spectra having 1 to 2 Å resolution. They determined $`T_{\mathrm{eff}}`$, $`\mathrm{log}g`$ and \[M/H\] of low metallicity stars to an accuracy of about 150 K in $`T_{\mathrm{eff}}`$ in the range 4250 K $`<`$ $`T_{\mathrm{eff}}`$$`<`$ 6500 K, 0.30 dex in $`\mathrm{log}g`$ over the range $`1.0`$$`\mathrm{log}g`$$`5.0`$ dex and 0.20 dex in \[M/H\] for $`4`$\[M/H\]$`0.3`$ dex. From our results, we find for this temperature range ($`L_2`$ and $`L_3`$ sample) a classification precision in $`T_{\mathrm{eff}}`$ of better than 5% for $`V14`$ mag (no extinction) without UV information and about 2% when UV data are included. Only for brighter stars ($`V13`$ mag) do we find that $`\mathrm{log}g`$ can be determined from dispis to better than 0.3 dex for temperatures in the range 4000 K $``$ $`T_{\mathrm{eff}}`$ $`<`$ 6000 K but only when UV data are included. Concerning metallicity, our results are comparable (better than 0.2 dex for visual magnitudes $`V12`$ mag, no extinction, UV data included). Clearly, this is because we have only used metallicities in the range from $``$0.3 dex to +1 dex (see above).

A comparison with the neural network approach using synthetic data for a test of possible GAIA photometric systems (Bailer-Jones 2000) may be of relevance. Bailer-Jones also used input data with various moderate resolutions, some of them similar to those of the spectral orders in dispis. The effects of the quantum efficiency (QE) of the detectors was not included, so that in his tests the information provided in the vicinity of (and shortward of) the Balmer jump could be utilized in full. After shifting our results to the fainter magnitudes reachable with GAIAs larger telescope, while considering the other differences between Bailer-Jones’ and our investigation as well as the differences between the DIVA and GAIA optics and data format, one must conclude that these ANN analyses work to similar satisfaction.

Little work has been done so far concerning the automated determination of interstellar extinction. Weaver & Torres-Dodgen (1995) tested the effect of extinction and found that $`E(BV)`$ could be determined from spectra of A type stars with an accuracy of 0.05 mag in the range of $`E(BV)`$ of 0 - 1.5 mag. Gulati et al. (1997) used IUE low-dispersion spectra (wavelength range 1153 - 3201 Å, spectral resolution 6 Å) from O and B stars. Applying reddening to their spectra in the $`E(BV)`$ range of 0.05 - 0.95 mag in steps of 0.05 mag, they were able to retrieve extinction with high accuracy to about 0.08 mag, clearly because of the presence of the 2200 Å bump in the input data. From Fig. 8 we see that extinction can be determined from dispis to better than 0.08 mag for visual magnitudes $`V14`$ mag for all temperatures in case that UV data are included.

Concerning the DIVA satellite, Elsner et al. (1999) found interesting results with Minimum Distance Methods. However, the optical concept of DIVA has changed considerably since then. Thus, also here a comparison of the quality may lead to a skewed judgement and we therefore refrain from going into detail.

A final remark deals with the effect of selecting our training sample randomly from the database. A random selection may accidentally lead to larger regions of parameter space without training data. Since our object (“application”) sample is the complement of the training set, objects falling in those gaps clearly are classified worse than objects near trained points. Malyuto (2002) demonstrated such effects when using Minimum Distance Methods. The average errors in our results are influenced by such effects, but this was not investigated.

In considering the accuracies obtained with our ANN approach we have to note that real stellar spectra show a much more complex behaviour than synthetic ones. For example, even the more realistic approach of non-LTE models (Hauschildt et al. 1999) cannot properly describe the true behaviour of elements in a stellar atmosphere (see e.g. Gray 1992, Ch. 13). Moreover, good colour calibrations in accord with observed data are still difficult to obtain, as described e.g. in Westera et al. (2002). It is difficult to estimate how to properly weigh such intrinsic inconsistencies with respect to the final performance of the DIVA satellite. The effect of such cosmic scatter probably is that the final performance of DIVA might be less accurate than our results from these ideal synthetic spectra, or, that the accuracy curves of Fig. 7 and Fig. 8 are to be shifted somewhat to brighter magnitudes.

We argued that additional UV data can improve the parameter results considerably in the classification process. The spectral library of our present simulations does not include, however, changes in, e.g., alpha-process elements which can show up in changes also in the range of DIVA’s UV channels (e.g. the CN violet system in the range from 385 to 422 nm).

The conclusions of the discussion are
1) The ANN method is well suited to obtain astrophysical parameters from DIVA dispis.
2) The accuracy obtained is related with the strength of the signal of each parameter as present in a dispi: $`T_{\mathrm{eff}}`$ is best, followed by $`\mathrm{log}g`$, and then $`E(BV)`$ and \[M/H\].
3) The accuracy is clearly related with temperature: toward higher temperature the signal of both $`\mathrm{log}g`$ and \[M/H\] decreases considerably.
4) Our results were obtained with synthetic spectra. Real stars will not all behave like text book objects and the classification coming from real data will necessarily be less good, albeit always to an unknown amount per star.
5) The classification quality is absolutely adequate to be able to select objects of desired characteristics from the final DIVA database to do statistical analyses and/or for efficient post mission type-related investigations.

###### Acknowledgements.

This project is carried out in preparation for the DIVA mission and we thank the DLR for financial support (Projectnr. 50QD0103). We thank Martin Altmann, Uli Bastian, Michael Hilker, Thibault Lejeune, Valeri Malyuto and Klaus Reif for helpful discussions. We also thank Oliver Cordes, Ole Marggraf and Sven Helmer for assistance with the computer system level support.


text:
# Definition 1

Non-left-orderable 3-manifold groups

Mieczysław K. Da̧bkowski, Józef H. Przytycki and Amir A. Togha

Abstract

We show that several torsion free 3-manifold groups are not left-orderable. Our examples are groups of cyclic branched coverings of $`S^3`$ branched along links. The figure eight knot provides simple nontrivial examples. The groups arising in these examples are known as Fibonacci groups which we show not to be left-orderable. Many other examples of non-orderable groups are obtained by taking 3-fold branched covers of $`S^3`$ branched along various hyperbolic 2-bridge knots. The manifold obtained in such a way from the $`5_2`$ knot is of special interest as it is conjectured to be the hyperbolic 3-manifold with the smallest volume.
We investigate the orderability properties of fundamental groups of 3-dimensional manifolds. We show that several torsion free 3-manifold groups are not left-orderable. Many of our manifolds are obtained by taking n-fold branched covers along various hyperbolic 2-bridge knots. The paper is organized in the following way: after defining left-orderability we state our main theorem listing branched set links and multiplicity of coverings from which we obtain manifolds with non-left-orderable groups. Then we describe presentations of these groups in a way which allows the proof of non-left-orderability in a uniform way. The Main Lemma (Lemma 5) is the algebraic underpinning of our method and the non-left-orderability follows easily from it in almost all cases. Moreover we prove the non-left-orderability of a family of 3-manifold groups to which the Main Lemma does not apply. These groups, known as generalized Fibonacci groups $`F(n1,n)`$, arise as groups of double covers of $`S^3`$ branched along pretzel links of type $`(2,2,\mathrm{},2,1)`$. We end the paper with some questions and speculations.

###### Definition 1

A group is left-orderable if there is a strict total ordering $``$ of its elements which is left-invariant: $`xy`$ iff $`zxzy`$ for all $`x,y`$ and $`z`$.

Straight from the definition, it follows that a group with a torsion element is not left-orderable.

It is known that groups of compact, $`P^2`$-irreducible 3-manifolds with non-trivial first Betti number are left-orderable \[BRW, H-S\]. However, our main theorem below lists various classes of 3-manifolds with non-left-orderable groups. Non-left-orderability of 3-manifold groups has interesting consequences for the geometry of the corresponding manifolds \[C-D, RSS\].

###### Theorem 2

Let $`M_L^{(n)}`$ denote the $`n`$-fold branched cover of $`S^3`$ branched along the link $`L`$, where $`n>1`$. Then the fundamental group, $`\pi _1(M_L^{(n)})`$, is not left-orderable in the following cases:

1. $`L=T_{(2^{},2k)}`$ is the torus link of the type $`(2,2k)`$ with the anti-parallel orientation of strings, and $`n`$ is arbitrary (Fig.1).
2. $`L=P(n_1,n_2,\mathrm{},n_k)`$ is the pretzel link of the type $`(n_1,n_2,\mathrm{},n_k)`$, $`k>2`$, where either (i) $`n_1,n_2,\mathrm{},n_k>0`$, or (ii) $`n_1=n_2=\mathrm{}=n_{k1}=2`$ and $`n_k=1`$ (Fig.2). The multiplicity of the covering is $`n=2`$.
3. $`L=L_{[2k,2m]}`$ is a 2-bridge knot of the type $`\frac{p}{q}=2m+\frac{1}{2k}=[2k,2m]`$, where $`k,m>0`$, and $`n`$ is arbitrary (Fig.4).
4. $`L=L_{[n_1,1,n_3]}`$ is the 2-bridge knot of the type $`\frac{p}{q}=n_3+\frac{1}{1+\frac{1}{n_1}}=[n_1,1,n_3]`$, where $`n_1`$ and $`n_3`$ are odd positive numbers. The multiplicity of the covering is $`n3`$.

Fig. 1

Fig. 2

The manifolds described in parts (a), (b), and also for $`n3`$ and the figure eight knot, $`L=L_{[2,2]}=4_1`$, in part (c) are Seifert fibered manifolds. The non-left-orderability of their groups follows from the general characterization of Seifert fibered manifolds with a left-ordering \[BRW\]. Part (c) for the figure eight knot when $`n=3`$ is of historical interest because it was the first known example of a non-left-orderable torsion free 3-manifold group \[Rol\]111This Euclidean manifold was first considered by Hantzsche and Wendt \[H-W\]. J. Conway has proposed to call this manifold didicosm. It can be also described as the 2-fold branched cover over $`S^3`$ branched along the Borromean rings.. Part (c) for the figure eight knot when $`n>3`$, gives rise to hyperbolic manifolds that are related to examples discussed in \[RSS\], as they are Dehn fillings of punctured-torus bundles over $`S^1`$. The manifolds obtained in parts (c) and (d), when $`n>2`$ (except $`M_{4_1}^{(3)}`$), are all hyperbolic manifolds as well222It follows from the Orbifold Theorem that branched $`n`$-fold covers ($`n>2`$) of $`S^3`$ branched along hyperbolic 2-bridge knots and links or along the Borromean rings are hyperbolic, except for $`M_{4_1}^{(3)}`$ which is a Euclidean manifold, didicosm \[Bo, HJM, Ho, Th\]..

The case $`\frac{p}{q}=\frac{7}{4}=1+\frac{1}{1+\frac{1}{3}}=[3,1,1]`$, that is, the branching set being the $`5_2`$ knot, is of special interest since $`M_{5_2}^{(3)}`$ is conjectured to be the hyperbolic 3-manifold with the smallest volume \[Ki\]. The fact that $`\pi _1(M_{5_2}^{(3)})`$ is not left-orderable was observed in \[C-D, RSS\]. The non-left-orderability in other cases is proved here for the first time.

The special form of the presentations of the groups listed in Theorem 2, allows us to conclude the theorem in most cases, using the Main Lemma formulated below (Lemma 5).

###### Proposition 3

The groups listed in Theorem 2 have the following presentations:
(a) $`\pi _1(M_{T_{(2^{},2k)}}^{(n)})=\{x_1,x_2,\mathrm{},x_n|x_1^kx_2^k=e,x_2^kx_3^k=e,\mathrm{},x_n^kx_1^k=e,x_1x_2\mathrm{}x_n=e\}`$
(b) (i) $`\pi _1(M_{P_{(n_1,n_2,\mathrm{},n_k)}}^{(2)})=\{x_1,x_2,\mathrm{},x_k|x_1^{n_1}x_2^{n_2}=e,x_2^{n_2}x_3^{n_3}=e,\mathrm{},x_k^{n_k}x_1^{n_1}=e,x_1x_2\mathrm{}x_k=e\}`$
(ii) $`\pi _1(M_{P_{(2,2,\mathrm{},2,1)}}^{(2)})=\{x_1,x_2,\mathrm{},x_k|x_1^2=x_2^2=\mathrm{}=x_k^2=x_1x_2\mathrm{}x_k\}`$
(c) $`\pi _1(M_{L_{[2k,2m]}}^{(n)})=\{z_1,z_2,\mathrm{},z_{2n}|z_{2i+1}=z_{2i}^kz_{2i+2}^k,z_{2i}=z_{2i1}^mz_{2i+1}^m,z_2z_4\mathrm{}z_{2n}=e\}`$ where $`i=1,2\mathrm{}n`$ and subscripts are taken modulo $`2n`$.
(d) $`\pi _1(M_{L_{[2k+1,1,2l+1]}}^{(n)})=\{x_1,\mathrm{},x_n|r_1=e,\mathrm{},r_n=e,x_1x_2\mathrm{}x_n=e\}`$, where $`k0`$, $`l0`$,

$$r_i=x_i^1(x_i^kx_{i+1}^{k+1}x_i^1)^lx_i^kx_{i+1}^{k+1}((x_{i+1}^kx_{i+2}^{k+1}x_{i+1}^1)^lx_{i+1}^kx_{i+2}^{k+1})^1,$$

and subscripts are taken modulo $`n`$.

Proof: Since the presentations for all manifolds from Theorem 2 are obtained by similar calculations, therefore we shall only provide full details for the case (c) (compare \[M-V\]). Let $`T_1`$ denote the 2-tangle in Fig.3(a), $`[2k]`$ in Conway’s notation and let $`T_2`$ denote the 2-tangle in Fig.3(b), $`[2m]`$ in Conway’s notation. Let us assume that the arcs of $`T_1`$ and $`T_2`$ are oriented in the way shown in Fig.3.

Fig. 3

Let $`F_2=\{a,b|\}`$ be a free group generated by $`a`$ and $`b`$. Assign to the initial arcs of $`T_1`$ the generators $`a`$ and $`b`$. Then by successive use of Wirtinger relations, progressing from left to right in the diagram, we finally decorate the terminal arcs by $`\overline{u}=(ba^1)^ka(ab^1)^k`$ and $`u=(ba^1)^kb(ab^1)^k`$, respectively (see Fig.3(a)). Analogously, assigning to initial arcs of the tangle $`T_2=[2m]`$ (Fig.3(b)) the elements $`b`$ and $`u`$ of $`F_2`$ and using Wirtinger relations successively one obtains terminal arcs decorated by $`w=(u^1b)^mb(b^1u)^m`$ and $`\overline{w}=(u^1b)^mu(b^1u)^m`$, respectively. Combining these calculations in the fashion illustrated in Fig.4, we obtain the relation $`((ba^1)^kb^1(ab^1)^kb)^mb=a((ba^1)^kb^1(ab^1)^kb)^m`$ and the presentation

$$\pi _1(S^3L_{[2k,2m]})=\{a,b|r=((ba^1)^kb^1(ab^1)^kb)^mb((ba^1)^kb^1(ab^1)^kb)^ma^1\}.$$

Fig. 4; The 2-bridge knot $`[2k,2m]`$

Using Fox non-commutative calculus \[Cr\], as explained in \[Pr, P-R\], we compute a presentation of $`\pi _1(M_{L_{[2k,2m]}}^{(n)})`$ by “lifting” the generators $`a`$ and $`b`$ as well as the defining relation $`r`$ of $`\pi _1(S^3L_{[2k,2m]})`$.

We illustrate this by first computing a presentation of the fundamental group of the $`n`$-fold cyclic unbranched covering of $`S^3L_{[2k,2m]}`$. Since $`\pi _1(S^3L_{[2k,2m]})`$ has 2 generators, $`a`$ and $`b`$, the covering space will have $`n+1`$ generators, that is, $`y=ab^1,\tau (y),\tau ^2(y)\mathrm{},\tau ^{n1}(y)`$ and $`b^n`$, where $`\tau `$ is the inner automorphism of $`F_2`$, given by $`\tau (w)=bwb^1`$ (see Fig.5).

The relation $`r`$ will also be lifted to $`n`$ relations $`\stackrel{~}{r},\tau (\stackrel{~}{r}),\tau ^2(\stackrel{~}{r}),\mathrm{},\tau ^{n1}(\stackrel{~}{r})`$, in the group of the $`n`$-fold cyclic covering, where

$$\stackrel{~}{r}=((y^1)^k(\tau ^1(y))^k)^m((\tau (y^1))^k(y)^k)^my^1.$$

When dealing with the branched case, however, the relations $`a^n=e`$ and $`b^n=e`$ should also be added333Since $`L_{[2k,2m]}`$ is a knot, the relation $`a^n=e`$ follows from the relation $`b^n=e`$ and the relations $`\tau ^i(\stackrel{~}{r})`$.. We then write the word $`a^n`$ in terms of new generators as $`y\tau (y)\mathrm{}\tau ^{n1}(y)`$. In order to simplify the presentation of $`\pi _1(M_{L_{[2k,2m]}}^{(n)})`$ we put $`x_1=\tau ^1(y),x_2=y,x_3=\tau (y),\mathrm{},x_n=\tau ^{n2}(y)`$. Thus

$$\pi _1(M_{L_{[2k,2m]}}^{(n)})=\{x_1,x_2,\mathrm{},x_n|x_i^1(x_i^kx_{i1}^k)^m(x_{i+1}^kx_i^k)^m=e,x_1x_2\mathrm{}x_n=e\},$$

where $`i=1,\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2},\mathrm{},n`$ and subscripts are taken modulo $`n`$.

To change this presentation to the one described in Proposition 3(c) we “deform” variables by putting $`z_{2i}=x_i`$ and $`z_{2i+1}=x_i^kx_{i+1}^k`$. In new variables the presentation has the desired form

$$\pi _1(M_{L_{[2k,2m]}}^{(n)})=\{z_1,z_2,\mathrm{},z_{2n}|z_{2i+1}=z_{2i}^kz_{2i+2}^k,z_{2i}=z_{2i1}^mz_{2i+1}^m,z_2z_4\mathrm{}z_{2n}=e\},$$

where $`i=1,2,\mathrm{},n`$ and subscripts are taken modulo $`2n`$. 444In the special case of $`k=m=1`$ we obtain the classical Fibonacci group $`F(2,2n)`$ already known to be the fundamental group of $`M_{4_1}^{(n)}`$. We suggest that the presentation for any $`k`$ and $`m`$ to be called the ($`k,m`$)-deformation, $`F((k,m),2n)`$, of the classical Fibonacci group. $`\mathrm{}`$ It is worth mentioning that the case (c) that we singled out for illustrating the proof of Proposition 3 involves a step that the proofs for other cases do not require. More specifically, all of the presentations given in the statement of Proposition 3, except for the case (c), are results of straightforward calculations and we do not need to deform the variables in any way in those cases in order to obtain the desired presentation.

The following definition and Main Lemma capture the algebraic properties of listed groups.

###### Definition 4

1. Given a finite sequence $`ϵ_1,ϵ_2,\mathrm{},ϵ_n`$, $`ϵ_i\{1,1\}`$, for all $`i=1,2,\mathrm{},n`$ and a nonempty reduced word $`w=x_{a_1}^{b_1}x_{a_2}^{b_2}\mathrm{}x_{a_m}^{b_m}`$ of the free group $`F_n=\{x_1,x_2,\mathrm{},x_n|\}`$, we say $`w`$ blocks the sequence $`ϵ_1,ϵ_2,\mathrm{},ϵ_n`$ if either $`ϵ_{a_j}b_j>0`$ for all $`j`$ or $`ϵ_{a_j}b_j<0`$ for all $`j=1,2,\mathrm{},m`$.
2. A set $`W`$ of reduced words of $`F_n`$ is complete if for any given sequence $`ϵ_1,ϵ_2,\mathrm{},ϵ_n`$, $`ϵ_i\{1,1\}`$, for $`i=1,2,\mathrm{},n`$, there is a word $`wW`$ that blocks $`ϵ_1,ϵ_2,\mathrm{},ϵ_n`$.
3. The presentation $`\{x_1,x_2,\mathrm{},x_n|W\}`$ of a group $`G`$ is called complete if the set $`W`$ of relations is complete.

###### Lemma 5 (Main Lemma)

Any nontrivial group $`G`$ that admits a complete presentation is not left-orderable.

Proof: Suppose, on the contrary, that $``$ is a left-ordering on $`G`$. Let $`G=\{x_1,x_2,\mathrm{},x_n|W\}`$ be a complete presentation of $`G`$. Let $`E=\{(ϵ_1,ϵ_2,\mathrm{},ϵ_n)|x_i^{ϵ_i}e`$ in the group $`G`$, where $`ϵ_i\{1,1\},i=1,2,\mathrm{},n\}`$. Since $`W`$ is complete, each sequence $`(ϵ_1,ϵ_2,\mathrm{},ϵ_n)E`$ is blocked by a word $`wW`$. Since $`w`$ is a relator, this is impossible, because the product of a number of “positive” elements in a left-orderable group will be “positive”, not the identity. This contradiction completes the proof. $`\mathrm{}`$

Theorem 2 follows easily from the Main Lemma and Proposition 3 in all cases except for part (b)(ii) which we deal with separately in the following lemma.

###### Lemma 6

Let $`F(n1,n)=`$
$`\{x_1,\mathrm{},x_n`$ $`|`$ $`x_1x_2\mathrm{}x_{n1}=x_n,x_2x_3\mathrm{}x_n=x_1,\mathrm{},x_nx_1\mathrm{}x_{n2}=x_{n1}\}`$.
If $`n>2`$, then $`F(n1,n)`$ is not left-orderable.

Proof: $`F(2,3)`$ is finite (it is the quaternion group $`Q_8`$), hence it is not left-orderable. Let us assume, then, that $`n>3`$. First of all, note that the mapping $`x_ig:F(n1,n)\{g`$ $`|`$ $`g^{n2}=e\}=Z_{n2}`$ defines an epimorphism, and since $`n2>1`$ our group is not the trivial group.

It is not hard to see that in $`F(n1,n)`$ we have $`x_1^2=x_2^2=\mathrm{}=x_n^2=x_1x_2\mathrm{}x_n`$. Let $`t=x_i^2=x_1x_2\mathrm{}x_n`$ for any $`i`$. Suppose that $``$ is a left-ordering on $`F(n1,n)`$. Since $`F(n1,n)`$ is not the trivial group, hence $`te`$ unless our group has a torsion, which is not the case. Consider the case $`te`$. The case $`et`$ can be dealt with similarly.

Since $`t=x_i^2`$, we must have $`x_ie`$ for all $`i`$. In particular, $`x_ie`$ for all $`i`$. This makes $`x_1x_2\mathrm{}x_nx_1`$ impossible, because if $`x_1=x_2=\mathrm{}=x_ne`$, then $`x_1^2=t=x_1x_2\mathrm{}x_n=x_1^n`$ implies $`x_1^{n2}=e`$, which in turn makes $`F(n1,n)`$ a torsion group and thus non-left-orderable.

Therefore, $`x_{i+1}x_i`$ for some $`i`$ modulo $`n`$. Assume, without loss of generality, that $`x_nx_{n1}`$. Multiplying from the left by $`x_1x_2\mathrm{}x_{n1}`$ one obtains

$$t=x_1x_2\mathrm{}x_{n1}x_nx_1x_2\mathrm{}x_{n2}x_{n1}x_{n1}=x_1x_2\mathrm{}x_{n2}t=tx_1x_2\mathrm{}x_{n2}.$$

The last equality holds because $`t=x_i^2`$ commutes will all $`x_i`$. Multiplying both sides from the left by $`t^1`$ gives $`ex_1x_2\mathrm{}x_{n2}`$, contradicting the fact that $`x_ie`$ for all $`i`$. $`\mathrm{}`$

Left-orderability of a countable group $`G`$ is equivalent to $`G`$ being isomorphic to a subgroup of $`Homeo_+(𝐑)`$ (compare \[BRW\]). Calegari and Dunfield related left-orderability of the group of a 3-manifold $`M`$ with foliations on $`M`$. Therefore we have

###### Corollary 7

1. The groups of manifolds described in Theorem 2 do not admit a faithful representation to $`Homeo_+(𝐑)`$.
2. Manifolds described in Theorem 2 do not admit a co-orientable $`𝐑`$-covered foliation \[C-D\].

Thurston proved that if an atoroidal 3-manifold $`M`$ has a taut foliation then there exists a faithful action of $`\pi _1(M)`$ on $`S^1`$ \[C-D\]. Exploring the fact that the group of the manifold of the smallest known volume, $`M_{5_2}^{(3)}`$, (together with some of its subgroups) is not left-orderable, Calegari and Dunfield showed that $`\pi _1(M_{5_2}^{(3)})`$ does not admit a faithful action of $`\pi _1(M)`$ on $`S^1`$ and therefore $`M_{5_2}^{(3)}`$ does not admit a taut foliation \[C-D\]. The connection between faithful actions of $`\pi _1(M)`$ on $`S^1`$ and on $`𝐑`$ is to be explored further.

We would like to contrast our non-left-orderability results with some examples of left-orderable 3-manifold groups.

It is known that if $`M_K^{(n)}`$ is irreducible (as is always the case for a hyperbolic knot $`K`$) and the group $`H_1(M_K^{(n)})`$ is infinite, then the group $`\pi _1(M_K^{(n)})`$ is left-orderable \[BRW, H-S\]. There are several examples of 2-bridge knots with infinite homology groups of cyclic branched coverings along them. For the trefoil knot $`3_1`$ we have $`H_1(M_{3_1}^{(6k)})=ZZ`$. For hyperbolic 2-bridge knots $`9_6=K_{[2,2,5]}`$ and $`10_{21}=K_{[3,4,1,2]}`$ the groups $`H_1(M_{9_6}^{(6)})`$ and $`H_1(M_{10_{21}}^{(10)})`$ are also infinite 555To see quickly that $`H_1(M_K^{(n)})`$ is infinite one can use Fox theorem which says that $`H_1(M_K^{(n)})`$ is infinite if and only if the Alexander polynomial, $`\mathrm{\Delta }_K(t)`$, is equal to zero for some $`n`$th root of unity. To test the last condition for small knots one can use tables of knots with $`\mathrm{\Delta }_K(t)`$ decomposed into irreducible factors \[B-Z\]. We check, for example, that $`\mathrm{\Delta }_K(e^{\pi i/3})=0`$ for hyperbolic 2-bridge knots $`K=8_{11},9_6,9_{23},10_5,10_9,10_{32}`$ and $`10_{40}`$. Note also that Casson and Gordon proved that $`p^k`$-fold cyclic branched coverings along a knot, where $`p`$ is prime, are rational homology spheres..

We end the paper with some questions about possible generalizations of our results.

###### Problem 8

1. Are the groups $`\pi _1(M_{5_2}^{(n)})`$ non-left-orderable for $`n>3`$?
2. Are the groups $`\pi _1(M_K^{(n)})`$ of hyperbolic 2-bridge knots $`K`$ with finite $`H_1(M_K^{(n)})`$ non-left-orderable?
3. Are the groups $`\pi _1(M_K^{(n)})`$ of hyperbolic knots $`K`$ with finite $`H_1(M_K^{(n)})`$ non-left-orderable?
4. In general, for which links $`L`$ and multiplicities of covering $`n`$, is the group $`\pi _1(M_L^{(n)})`$ non-left-orderable?

Acknowledgment. We would like to thank Andrzej Szczepański for introducing Fibonacci groups to us. We are also grateful to José Montesinos, Dan Silver and Andrei Vesnin for their valuable correspondence.

Department of Mathematics
The George Washington University
Washington, DC 20052
e-mails:
mdab@utdallas.edu
przytyck@gwu.edu
userid@gwu.edu