text:
# Strong Balmer lines in old stellar populations: No need for young ages in ellipticals?

## 1. Introduction

More than 20 years ago it has been recognized that the modeling of the spectral energy distribution of ellipticals is affected by an ambiguity in age and metallicity (Faber 1972; O’Connell 1976), which has turned out to be a general complication in population synthesis (Renzini 1986). However, considering Simple Stellar Populations (SSP) in the two-parameter space of Balmer and metallic lines, the age-metallicity degeneracy can be broken (González 1993; Worthey 1994). The major reason for the success of this strategy is that the Balmer line strengths of SSPs are predominantly age sensitive at metallicities above $`1/3Z_{}`$ that are supposed to be the only relevant for elliptical galaxies. Strong $`\mathrm{H}\beta `$ lines are thus taken as an indication for young (intermediate-age) populations, the observed scatter is interpreted as a considerable spread in age (e.g., Faber et al. 1995).

An alternative path to obtain blue stars and hence strong Balmer lines is to consider old metal-poor populations. In this paper we follow this approach and compute composite stellar populations that contain an old metal-poor subcomponent. The principal focus is to check if a combination of only old populations can reproduce strong $`\mathrm{H}\beta `$ without invalidating further constraints for ellipticals like metallic indices, colors and spectral energy distributions.

The paper is organized as follows. In Section 2 we calibrate the SSP model indices and spectral energy distributions on globular cluster data. The composite models and their application to galaxy data are presented in Section 3. In Sections 4 and 5 we discuss and summarize the results.

## 2. Simple stellar population models

We compute a new set of SSP models based on the population synthesis presented in Maraston (1998), in which the fuel consumption theorem (Renzini & Buzzoni 1986) is adopted to evaluate the energetics of the post main sequence phases. The new SSP models cover the metallicities $`2.25<[\mathrm{Fe}/\mathrm{H}]<0.5`$ and ages $`10^7210^{10}`$ yr. The input stellar tracks are taken from Bono et al. (1997) and S. Cassisi (1999, private communication). These new models will be discussed in detail in a future paper (C. Maraston, in preparation). The calibration of the model colors on globular clusters is presented in Maraston (1998, 2000). Here we show the calibration of indices and spectral energy distributions of the SSP models that are relevant for the present study.

### 2.1. Spectral line indices

Synthetic line indices for SSPs are computed using the fitting functions from Worthey et al. (1994). Fig. 1 shows $`\mathrm{H}\beta `$, Fe5335, and Mgb as a function of \[Fe/H\] for galactic globular clusters from various data sets (see the caption). Our SSP models of fixed age (15 Gyr) and various metallicities are plotted as solid lines. Dotted lines are the models from Worthey (1994) for $`t=17`$ Gyr.

As metal-poor stars ($`[\mathrm{Fe}/\mathrm{H}]1.3`$) spend their horizontal branch lifetimes at temperatures $`T_{\mathrm{eff}}5500`$ K, $`\mathrm{H}\beta `$ is steeply rising with decreasing \[Fe/H\] (upper panel in Fig. 1). This observed feature is the key for the present analysis and is well reproduced by our SSPs. The models from Worthey (1994), instead, predict a shallower trend, which implies that the very metal-poor globulars are younger than the more metal-rich ones. The synthetic Fe5335 indices are in good agreement with the Covino, Galletti & Pasinetti (1995) data, while for $`[\mathrm{Fe}/\mathrm{H}]1.5`$ Burstein et al. (1984) and Trager (1998) derive lower values. Mgb indices seem slightly overestimated by the models at low metallicities.

Our synthetic metallic indices Fe5335, Mgb and the Balmer line $`\mathrm{H}\beta `$ for $`[\mathrm{Fe}/\mathrm{H}]1.5`$ agree well with the models from Worthey (1994), because both sets of models are based on the same fitting functions (Worthey et al. 1994). The uncertainty introduced by the use of different fitting functions is discussed in Maraston, Greggio & Thomas (1999) and L. Greggio & C. Maraston (in preparation). The low $`\mathrm{H}\beta `$ values given by Worthey (1994) at very low metallicities are likely due to the assumption of too red horizontal branch morphologies in the models.

As discussed in Worthey et al. (1994), iron indices are favorable as metallicity indicators, because the analysis with Mg-indices is severely affected by $`\alpha `$-enhancement (Tripicco & Bell 1995): SSP models based on solar abundance ratios predict – for a given Fe index – weaker Mg indices than measured in elliptical galaxies (Worthey, Faber & González 1992; Greggio 1997). As at high metallicities the fitting functions of Fe5270 are significantly more uncertain (Maraston et al. 1999), in the following analysis we focus on $`\mathrm{H}\beta `$ and Fe5335. We additionally consider the color $`BK`$ as metallicity indicator which turns out to be in good agreement with Fe5335, while Mgb systematically implies higher metallicities (see Section 3).

Combining $`\mathrm{H}\beta `$ with Fe5335, for 47 Tuc we obtain a ‘spectroscopic age’ of 15 Gyr (Fig. 1) in agreement with the age derived from the color-magnitude diagram ($`14\pm 1`$ Gyr, Richer et al. 1996). This example shows that the $`\mathrm{H}\beta `$-Fe5335 plane is successful in breaking the age-metallicity degeneracy, when applied to simple systems like globular clusters. Note that the high resolution Balmer index H$`\gamma _{\mathrm{HR}}`$, instead, leads to a ‘spectroscopic age’ in excess of $`20`$ Gyr (Gibson et al. 2000).

### 2.2. Spectral energy distributions

The evolutionary synthesis code of Maraston (1998) is updated for the computation of the SSP spectral energy distributions (SEDs). The spectral library of Lejeune, Cuisinier & Buser (1998) is adopted to describe the stellar spectra as functions of gravity, temperature and metallicity.

The tightest constraint on the amount and the metallicity of metal-poor stars in elliptical galaxies comes from the flux in the mid-UV ($`20004000`$ Å). In Fig. 2 we present the calibration of synthetic metal-poor SEDs on galactic globular cluster data in the wavelength range $`\lambda =15003300`$ Å (van Albada, de Boer & Dickens 1981). The model spectra are in excellent agreement with the data in the whole metallicity range. The increase of the flux shortward 3000 Å with decreasing metallicity is due to a hotter main sequence turn-off and a bluer horizontal branch. Note, however, that there are globulars of intermediate metallicity (\[Fe/H\]$`1.5`$) that show horizontal branches bluer than what it is expected with the canonical mass-loss on the Red Giant Branch (van Albada et al. 1981). This case is shown in the central panel of Fig. 2 for the globulars M13 (NGC 6205), filled squares) and NGC 5272, which have the same metallicity $`[\mathrm{Fe}/\mathrm{H}]1.54`$ but different horizontal branch morphologies. M13 contains extreme blue horizontal branch stars (‘blue tails’), and exhibits an excess of flux shortward $`2000`$ Å (see Section 3.2.1).

As blue tails are preferentially found in denser and more concentrated globulars, it is likely that the particular dynamical conditions in such ‘second parameter’ globular clusters lead to enhanced mass-loss and extremely hot horizontal branch stars (Fusi Pecci et al. 1993), which may not apply to the average stellar field population in galaxies. Since in early-type galaxies globular clusters contribute less than 0.6 per cent to the total $`V`$-light (Ashman & Zepf 1998), we adopt the canonical mass loss $`\eta =0.33`$ for \[Fe/H\]$`1.5`$ calibrated on ‘normal’ globulars like NGC 5272 (Fusi Pecci & Renzini 1975).

## 3. Results

In the following we compare old ($`>12`$ Gyr) composite stellar populations with data of elliptical galaxies. The models consist of two components: a major metal-rich population ($`Z=Z_{\mathrm{maj}}`$) and a metal-poor subpopulation ($`Z=Z_{\mathrm{sub}}`$). More complex models with a continuum of metallicities will be subject of a future paper.

### 3.1. Indices and colors

Fig. 3 displays $`\mathrm{H}\beta `$ vs. Fe5335 (left-hand panel) and $`\mathrm{H}\beta `$ vs. $`BK`$ (right-hand panel) for composite models in which the ages of the major population and of the metal-poor subcomponent are fixed to 14 Gyr and 15 Gyr, respectively. The contribution from the low-metallicity population is 10 per cent by mass.

The grid in Fig. 3 shows models for various metallicities of the two components. Solid lines connect models with constant metallicity of the major component $`Z_{\mathrm{maj}}=0.5,1,2,3Z_{}`$ (from left to right). The metallicity of the subcomponent is $`Z_{\mathrm{sub}}=0.05`$ (large open squares) and $`Z_{\mathrm{sub}}=0.005Z_{}`$ (large open circles). For comparison, simple stellar populations with metallicities $`Z=Z_{\mathrm{maj}}`$ and $`t=t_{\mathrm{maj}}`$ are shown as large open triangles. The dotted (horizontal) lines mark models of constant $`Z_{\mathrm{sub}}`$.

The perturbation of metal-rich simple stellar populations with metal-poor stars leads to lower Fe5335 line strengths, bluer $`BK`$ colors, and stronger Balmer lines. The models with $`Z_{\mathrm{sub}}=0.005Z_{}`$ reach $`\mathrm{H}\beta `$ $`2`$ Å. Observed line strengths (González 1993; Kuntschner & Davies 1998; Mehlert et al. 2000) and colors (Pahre 1998) of elliptical galaxies and lenticular galaxies are shown as small filled and small open symbols, respectively. The present set of composite models match the area that is covered by the majority of the galaxy data. Note that the objects exhibiting $`\mathrm{H}\beta >2`$ Å are either classified as lenticular galaxies (small open symbols) or they are intermediate-mass field ellipticals (NGC 1700, NGC 3377, NGC 5831, NGC 6702, NGC 7454) or dwarf ellipticals (M32 (NGC 221), NGC 4489) from the González (1993) sample. All luminous field ellipticals and all cluster ellipticals (Coma, Fornax, and Virgo) in Fig. 3, instead, can be modeled with the old composite populations introduced above. It should be emphasized that the bulk of ellipticals scatter around $`\mathrm{H}\beta 1.6`$ Å, so that less than 10 per cent contribution from metal-poor stars is required in most cases. The observed range $`\mathrm{H}\beta 1.32.0`$ is then due to a spread in the metallicity and/or the weight of the metal-poor subcomponent. The analysis with simple stellar population models, instead, yields an age-spread of $`715`$ Gyr.

Another striking feature of Fig. 3 is that the positions of the galaxy data relative to each other are the same in the Fe5335 and the $`BK`$ diagrams. Moreover, the locations of the model grids relative to the data points in the two panels are in good agreement, so that both the metallic index Fe5335 and the color $`BK`$ consistently constrain the metallicity range for the major component to $`13Z_{}`$. This strongly reinforces the use of Fe5335 as metallicity indicator (see Section 2). In Fig. 4 we show the same data and the same model grid in the $`\mathrm{H}\beta `$-Mgb plane. As discussed in Section 2.1, Mg lines of ellipticals are generally stronger than any SSP model. This feature is attributed to an enhancement of Mg in luminous ellipticals. As a consequence the metallicities derived from the Mg-indices are substantially higher and provoke severe inconsistencies with observed colors (see also Saglia et al. 2000). As the latter are much less affected by abundance ratio anomalies, the $`\mathrm{H}\beta `$-$`BK`$ plane represents the more reliable constraint on stellar population models.

Note that the $`\mathrm{H}\beta `$ line index additionally suffers from uncertainties in the correction for contamination by emission (González 1993), which can lead to an underestimation of the $`\mathrm{H}\beta `$ line strength. This effect may explain the low values $`\mathrm{H}\beta 1.5`$ Å that fall below the model grid in Fig. 3.

### 3.2. Constraints from the mid-UV

The fluxes radiated by metal-poor stellar populations are high in the mid-UV ($`20004000`$ Å), and decrease shortward 2000 Å (Fig. 2). The so-called UV-upturn below 2000 Å observed in elliptical galaxies (Burstein et al. 1988), instead, is most likely due to late evolutionary phases of old metal-rich populations (Greggio & Renzini 1990; Dorman, O’Connell & Rood 1995; Yi, Demarque & Oemler 1998; Greggio & Renzini 1999). The amount of metal-poor stars in elliptical galaxies is therefore tightly constrained by the flux in the mid-UV around 2500 Å.

A model based on the closed-box metallicity distribution is not compatible with the mid-UV flux of the elliptical galaxies NGC 4649 and NGC 1404 (Bressan, Chiosi & Fagotto 1994) and of the M31 bulge (Worthey, Dorman & Jones 1996), which is referred to as the G-dwarf problem for ellipticals. On the other hand, Lotz, Ferguson & Bohlin (2000) find that the spectra of ellipticals in the mid-UV even require the addition of a metal-poor component. In the following we investigate if the proportions of metal-poor stars required to explain the $`\mathrm{H}\beta `$ line strengths are consistent with the fluxes observed in the mid-UV.

The objects with the strongest $`\mathrm{H}\beta `$ ($`1.65`$) that we obtain from cross correlating the samples of González (1993), Kuntschner & Davies (1998), and Mehlert et al. (2000) with the Burstein et al. (1988) sample (‘quiescent objects’) are M31 (NGC 224), NGC 4472, and NGC 3379. We additionally consider NGC 4649, which exhibits a low $`\mathrm{H}\beta =1.40`$. These objects cover a large range in $`1500V`$ colors, NGC 4649 having the strongest UV-upturn. In the following we check if the composite models for these specific galaxies are in agreement with their SEDs. In order to constrain the flux from the metal-poor population in the mid-UV, it is necessary to model the UV-upturn. Following the description by Greggio & Renzini (1990), we include hot ($`T25,000`$ K) late evolutionary phases in the metal-rich components, such that the observed UV rising branches are reproduced.

The main model parameters for each galaxy are listed in Table 1. Col. (3) specifies the mass fractions (per cent) of the two components. Note that less than 10 per cent is required in all cases. The metallicities, ages, indices ($`\mathrm{H}\beta `$, Fe5335, Mgb), and colors ($`BK`$, $`UV`$) of the two populations are given in Cols. $`(4)(10)`$. The fuel FUV (in $`M_{}`$) in late evolutionary phases required to reproduce the observed UV-upturn is given in Col. (11).

In Table 2 we present the relative contributions to $`\mathrm{H}\beta `$ and to the total fluxes at the wavelengths 5550 ($`V`$-band), 3600 ($`U`$-band), 2500, and 1500 Å. The weight of the metal-poor component increases with decreasing $`\lambda `$, with a maximum contribution in the mid-UV ($`2500`$ Å) as the rising branch shortward 2000 Å is produced by the metal-rich component. It is important to emphasize that in the model proposed here, the Balmer line strengths and the UV upturn do not have a common origin: we obtain strong $`\mathrm{H}\beta `$ with metal-poor (hot) horizontal branch stars, while blue $`1500V`$ colors are due to extremely hot old metal-rich stars. The trend of decreasing $`\mathrm{H}\beta `$ with increasing Mg2 and decreasing $`1500V`$ (Burstein et al. 1988) is therefore not affected.

In Table 3 we compare the resulting indices and colors of the composed models with the observed values. The indices $`\mathrm{H}\beta `$, Fe5335 and the colors $`BK`$, $`UV`$ are in good agreement with observations.

The fits to the observed SEDs are shown in Fig. 5 as thick solid lines, the dotted lines are the SEDs of the metal-poor and the metal-rich components. The spectra in the UV (open symbols) are from Burstein et al. (1988) and L. Buson (1999, private communication), the spectro-photometry in the optical (thin solid lines) is from D. Hamilton (1999, private communication). In all cases, the observed spectra are well reproduced in the full wavelength range $`\lambda =12006000`$ Å. Thus the amount of metal-poor stars required to reproduce the observed $`\mathrm{H}\beta `$ (see Table 1) is consistent with the fluxes in the mid-UV, the model spectra perfectly match the minimum around 2500 Å. In the following we briefly discuss the individual galaxies.

#### 3.2.1 M31

As shown in Table 1 we reproduce the observables of M31 (for the colors see NGC 4472) with $`Z_{\mathrm{sub}}=0.005Z_{}`$ contributing 3 per cent to the total mass of the population, which corresponds to 6 per cent in $`V`$, 9 per cent at $`\mathrm{H}\beta `$ and 61 per cent at $`\lambda =2500`$ Å. Wu et al. (1980), instead, claim that not more than 50 per cent contribution from a metal-poor component at $`\lambda =2500`$ Å is compatible with the mid-UV flux of M31. The reason for this ostensible discrepancy is that the authors fix the metallicity of the metal-rich component to $`Z_{\mathrm{maj}}=0.5Z_{}`$, which is lower than the value adopted here by more than a factor of 3 (see Table 1). As the SED of a more metal-rich population has lower flux in the mid-UV, our composite model requires a larger contribution from the metal-poor component. Using exactly the same prescriptions as these authors, we are consistent with their result. Due to the low metallicity of the metal-rich component, however, the model of Wu et al. (1980) fails in reproducing the other observational constraints of M31: it results in colors that are too blue ($`BK=3.48`$, $`UV1.21`$), Fe indices that are too low ($`\mathrm{Fe5335}2.01`$), and Balmer line strengths that are too high ($`\mathrm{H}\beta =2.07`$).

#### 3.2.2 NGC 4472

The Virgo elliptical NGC 4472 has virtually the same properties as M31, wherefore it can be modeled with the same set of populations. The model given in the second line of Table 1 is an alternative option for both objects assuming a higher contribution from the metal-poor subcomponent and a higher metallicity of the major population. As a consequence, the contribution from the low-metallicity population increases to 70 per cent at 2500 Å and to 12 per cent in $`V`$. Wu et al. (1980) derive a lower contribution in $`V`$ relative to 2500 Å (50 per cent at 2500 Å and 6 per cent in $`V`$), because the authors chose the globular cluster M13 (NGC 6205) as a representative of the metal-poor population. As discussed in Section 2.2, this particular globular cluster has an extreme blue horizontal branch morphology and exhibits very high fluxes in the mid-UV (see Fig. 2), which implies a lower $`V`$ over 2500 Å flux ratio.

#### 3.2.3 NGC 3379

NGC 3379 exhibits equally high $`\mathrm{H}\beta `$, but bluer colors and lower metallic indices. The best fitting model thus has a lower $`Z_{\mathrm{maj}}=Z_{}`$ and requires only 1 per cent of $`Z_{\mathrm{sub}}=0.005Z_{}`$.

#### 3.2.4 NGC 4649

NGC 4649 has the strongest UV upturn (bluest $`1500V`$), requiring a factor of $`10`$ more fuel at late evolutionary phases than the other cases (see column (11) in Table 1). Given the low $`\mathrm{H}\beta `$ line strength, the best fit is obtained with a model containing only old metal-rich populations ($`Z_{\mathrm{sub}}=0.3Z_{}`$). This object strongly supports the view that the UV rising branch and $`\mathrm{H}\beta `$ line strength are not produced by the same kind of stars.

### 3.3. Models for $`\mathrm{H}\beta >2`$ Å

The model grid in Fig. 3 extends to $`\mathrm{H}\beta 2`$ Å, while some low-mass field ellipticals exhibit stronger Balmer lines. In principle such high $`\mathrm{H}\beta `$ can be obtained by increasing the weight of the low-metallicity component. For instance, the compact dwarf elliptical M32 (NGC 221) with $`\mathrm{H}\beta =2.37\pm 0.12`$, $`\mathrm{Fe5335}=2.54\pm 0.20`$ (Kormendy & Bender 1999) can be modeled by the 14-Gyr old two-component population with $`Z_{\mathrm{maj}}=23Z_{}`$ and 20 per cent of $`Z_{\mathrm{sub}}=0.005Z_{}`$. The SED of this model with such a large fraction of very metal-poor stars, however is not compatible with the fluxes observed in the mid-UV (see also Burstein et al. 1984; Rose & Deng 1999). On the other hand, from a deep HST color magnitude diagram, Grillmair et al. (1996) conclude that there is no evidence for an intermediate age population ($`t2`$ Gyr). It is worth mentioning, however, that M32 is a peculiar object that does not have the properties of the average elliptical galaxy population.

Alternatively to the addition of metal-poor stars, metal-rich populations with blue horizontal branch morphologies could reproduce strong $`\mathrm{H}\beta `$ without invoking young ages. Such hot horizontal branch stars are indeed observed in the metal-rich globular clusters NGC 6388 and NGC 6441 of the galactic bulge (Rich et al. 1997) and in M32 (Brown et al. 2000). A possible mechanism to produce these temperatures is enhanced mass loss along the RGB evolutionary phase. The investigation of this channel to obtain strong $`\mathrm{H}\beta `$ in old metal-rich populations will be the subject of a future paper.

## 4. Discussion

### 4.1. Metallicity distributions in ellipticals

The principle idea of this paper is to enhance the Balmer line strengths of old metal-rich stellar populations with a small fraction of metal-poor stars. The real metallicity distribution of the stellar populations in elliptical galaxies is difficult to assess observationally, as the stars cannot be resolved. The HST color magnitude diagram of M32 (Grillmair et al. 1996) and the spectroscopy of K giants in the Bulge (Rich 1988) show that these spheroids contain a tail of low metallicity stars. The closest giant elliptical for which color magnitude diagrams are available is NGC 5128 (Harris, Harris & Poole 1999). Analyzing deep HST images in the outer halo of NGC 5128, the authors find a differential metallicity distribution that is well reproduced by two closed-box-like chemical enrichment scenarios implying a large number of extremely metal-poor stars. In particular the differential shape of the distribution implies a formation picture in which a metal-poor and a metal-rich population are formed separately from each other.

This picture gets further support from a number of studies that discover bimodal color and metallicity distributions of globular clusters in at least half of the early-type galaxy population (Zepf & Ashman 1993; Gebhardt & Kissler-Patig 1999). Spectroscopic and photometric investigations indicate that both populations are old (Cohen, Blakeslee & Ryzhov 1998; Kissler-Patig et al. 1998; Kissler-Patig, Forbes & Minniti 1998; Kundu et al. 1999; Puzia et al. 1999). More specifically, Puzia et al. (1999) find that the two populations in NGC 4472 are old and coeval, with metallicities $`0.05Z_{}`$ and $`Z_{}`$. In the framework of hierarchical structure formation galaxies are built by mergers of smaller objects (e.g., White & Rees 1978; White & Frenk 1991; Kauffmann, White & Guiderdoni 1993). A merger of coeval systems without newly induced star formation would result in a coeval composite population. The accretion of a dwarf galaxy by a larger system (minor merger) qualitatively explains the existence of a metal-poor subpopulation.

There is an additional important effect that is independent of the assumed scheme of galaxy formation. As discussed by Greggio (1997), a sizable fraction of metal-poor stars from the outer parts of a galaxy contaminate the light coming from the center due to projection and orbital mixing (Ciotti, Stiavelli & Braccesi 1995). The authors find that projection effects lower the actual central metallicity by roughly 10 per cent. The metal-poor components in the composite models of M31, NGC 4472 and NGC 3379 (Table 1) dilute the metallicities of the metal-rich populations by 3, 6, and 4 per cent, respectively. Projection effects alone thus may be sufficient to explain the amount of metal-poor stars considered in the present analysis.

### 4.2. Evidence against recent star formation

There are observational indications from the Fundamental Plane (Djorgovski & Davis 1987; Dressler et al. 1987; Bender, Burstein & Faber 1992, 1993; Renzini & Ciotti 1993) and the color-magnitude relation (Bower, Lucey & Ellis 1992) that limit the fraction of the young population to less than 10 per cent. As late star formation leads to low $`\alpha `$/Fe ratios (Thomas, Greggio & Bender 1999; Thomas 1999), the addition of a young population provokes inconsistencies with the high $`\alpha `$/Fe ratios observed in elliptical galaxies (e.g., Worthey et al. 1992). Also the redshift evolution of colors (Aragón Salamanca et al. 1993), of the Mg-$`\sigma `$ relation (Bender, Ziegler & Bruzual 1996), of the Kormendy relation (Ziegler et al. 1999), and of the color gradients in cluster ellipticals (Saglia et al. 2000) leave little space for a significant contribution from a young subcomponent. The addition of an old, metal-poor population as discussed in this paper can reconcile these findings with strong Balmer lines.

Disturbed field ellipticals that have strong $`\mathrm{H}\beta `$ absorption (Schweizer et al. 1990) and blue optical colors (Schweizer & Seitzer 1992) do not show any signature of recent star formation activity in the infrared colors (Silva & Bothun 1998a, 1998b). As discussed by these authors, recent mergers may not have been accompanied by significant star formation, but metallicity effects are favored to explain the enhanced $`\mathrm{H}\beta `$ line strengths.

## 5. Summary

In this paper we show that strong Balmer lines can be produced by composite populations that contain a small fraction of old metal-poor stars.

The key to this result is that at low metallicities and old ages our SSP models show a steep increase of $`\mathrm{H}\beta `$ with decreasing metallicity, in accordance to what is observed in metal-poor globular clusters. We compute composite stellar population models that consist of an underlying old metal-rich population and a small fraction of an old metal-poor subcomponent. Assuming a 10 per cent contribution from metal-poor stars, we construct a grid of models in the $`\mathrm{H}\beta `$-Fe5335 and the $`\mathrm{H}\beta `$-$`BK`$ planes that reproduce $`\mathrm{H}\beta `$ up to $`2`$ Å and covers most of the elliptical galaxy data. It should be emphasized that the same conclusion holds for all Balmer lines, e.g. H$`\gamma `$ and H$`\delta `$. More specifically, the data of all cluster and luminous field ellipticals can be explained by our models without invoking young ages. The scatter in Balmer line strengths is then caused by a spread in the metallicity and/or the weight of the metal-poor component. Most ellipticals can be modeled with less than 10 per cent of metal-poor stars as the data scatter about $`\mathrm{H}\beta 1.6`$ Å.

We further show that the spectral energy distributions of the composite models that reproduce the indices and colors of representative examples agree well with the observed spectra in the wavelength range $`12006000`$ Å. Our models are perfectly compatible with the observed minimum at 2500 Å, that tightly constrains the possible amount of metal-poor stars.

We conclude that the age-metallicity degeneracy for complex systems like elliptical galaxies still remains to be solved. The perturbation with old metal-poor stars to obtain strong Balmer lines is alternative to the addition of a young metal-rich population (e.g., de Jong & Davies 1997; Kuntschner 2000; Longhetti et al. 2000). The key to discriminate between the two options lies in the evolution of Balmer lines with redshift. A young population of $`25`$ Gyr should leave its fingerprints with a significant peak of Balmer line strengths at redshifts $`z0.150.4`$, depending on the cosmology, which has not been detected so far (Ziegler & Bender 1997). The model presented here, instead, predicts Balmer lines to become monotonically stronger with redshift.

We are grateful to S. Cassisi, D. Hamilton, D. Mehlert, and L. Buson, for providing electronic versions of models and data. We thank R. Bender and M. Kissler-Patig for the careful reading of the manuscript. For many helpful discussions, we thank N. Drory, L. Greggio, U. Hopp, and R. Saglia. The referee is acknowledged for the very useful comments that improved the first version of the paper. This work was supported by the ”Sonderforschungsbereich 375-95 für Astro-Teilchenphysik” of the Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft.


format: text

text:
# The Superpartner Spectrum of Gaugino Mediation

## I Introduction

The soft-breaking terms in the Minimal Supersymmetric Standard Model (MSSM) need to have a very special form for the model to be viable. Generic mass matrices for the squarks and sleptons lead to unacceptably rapid flavor-changing and lepton-number-violating processes. Similarly, the tri-linear soft-breaking breaking A-terms also require fine tuning for the MSSM to agree with experiment. It is important to explore models which naturally solve the flavor fine-tuning problem.

The rates for flavor-changing processes induced by the soft masses are proportional to the ratios of the off-diagonal mass squares to the diagonal ones. In order to make such ratios small one needs to minimize the off-diagonal terms or increase the flavor-preserving masses. Examples of natural scenarios are gauge mediation  and anomaly mediation , which produce diagonal mass matrices due to the universality of the gauge coupling, and effective supersymmetry , which postulates large soft masses for the first two generations, for which the experimental constraints are most stringent. The popular minimal supergravity  model does not contain a solution to the flavor problem, instead one simply assumes that the higher-dimensional operators which produce the scalar masses are flavor preserving.

It has been noticed that in “gaugino-dominated” models the flavor problem is less severe . If at a high scale gaugino masses are larger than other soft parameters at that scale, then at low energies the soft masses consist of large flavor-conserving masses with smaller flavor-violating components. This is because the renormalization group running induces (positive!) universal soft scalar masses proportional to the gaugino masses. The generated scalar masses are flavor universal because couplings to gauginos are generation-independent. The most appealing gaugino-dominated scenarios have no soft masses for squarks and sleptons and no A-terms at a high scale $`M_{BC}`$. Since at the high scale there are no masses and no A-terms, the only sources of flavor violation are the Yukawa matrices, thus the supersymmetric flavor problem is solved by a “super-GIM” mechanism .

Gaugino domination also alleviates the supersymmetric CP problem because the only sources for new phases are the gaugino masses, $`\mu `$, and $`B`$. Two phases can be rotated away by field re-definitions, leaving only one possible new phase. For the special case $`B=0`$ the supersymmetric CP problem is solved automatically.

In fact, the special boundary conditions with vanishing superpartner masses and A-terms are theoretically well motivated. They arise, for example, in no-scale supergravity  or in the recently constructed higher-dimensional “gaugino mediation” models . In gaugino mediation the MSSM matter fields are confined to a brane in higher dimensions. Supersymmetry is assumed to break on a distant parallel brane. Extra dimensional locality forbids direct couplings between the two branes and thereby suppresses all soft masses which involve MSSM matter fields (squark and slepton masses, A-terms). Gauge fields and gauginos propagate in the bulk and couple directly to supersymmetry breaking, allowing for the generation of gaugino masses.

Extra-dimensional locality only forbids scalar masses at energies large compared to the compactification scale $`M_{BC}`$. At long distances the theory is four-dimensional and masses are generated from renormalization as usual. The compactification scale in gaugino mediation corresponds to a free parameter. Gauge coupling unification motivates us to choose $`M_{BC}>M_{GUT}`$, and an upper limit on $`M_{BC}`$ is given by the length scale at which Nature becomes non-local, presumably the string scale or Planck scale. In no-scale supergravity the scale $`M_{BC}`$ at which soft scalar masses vanish is related to the string scale. In the following we will treat $`M_{BC}`$ as a free parameter subject to the constraint $`M_{GUT}M_{BC}M_{Planck}`$, and refer to the boundary condition of vanishing scalar masses and A terms as gaugino mediation.

Clearly this scenario is very appealing and it is crucial to ask if it is phenomenologically viable. For the particular choice of $`M_{BC}=M_{GUT}`$ one finds that the stau is the lightest superpartner (LSP) which is problematic because the calculated relic abundance of stable staus exceeds experimental limits by many orders of magnitude. This observation is often conceived as a failure of no-scale models and has motivated construction of models with new fields at intermediate scales to modify the renormalization group equations. In this paper we repeat the analysis for general $`M_{BC}M_{GUT}`$ and find the good news that the problematic stau-LSP is very special to $`M_{BC}M_{GUT}`$. For compactification scales slightly higher than $`M_{GUT}`$ the stau mass gets a large new contribution from running in the unified theory above $`M_{GUT}`$ which lifts its mass above the mass of the Bino. This results in a very satisfying cosmological picture with a Bino-LSP.

Usually, the renormalization above the GUT scale is ignored (see, however, Refs. ). There are two seemingly good reasons for this negligence, we find that both are invalid. The first reason given is that $`\mathrm{log}(M_{BC}/M_{GUT})`$ is negligibly small compared to $`\mathrm{log}(M_{GUT}/M_{weak})`$. However, we find that the smallness of the logarithm is compensated for by much larger group theory factors which arise in GUT theories. In particular, the right-handed sleptons receive only very small contributions from running below the GUT scale because they carry only hypercharge, but above $`M_{GUT}`$ they are unified into a much larger representation with large corresponding group theory factors. The second reason is that the renormalization group equations above $`M_{GUT}`$ are necessarily model-dependent. Obviously, GUTs have more fields than just the MSSM multiplets and the adjoint field needed to break the GUT symmetry to the Standard Model gauge group. For example, there must be additional multiplets that guarantee the splitting of the doublet and triplet Higgs fields. All such new GUT-scale fields appear with model-dependent SUSY couplings. However, this does not necessarily imply that the running of all soft parameters above the GUT scale is model dependent. As we will demonstrate in gaugino mediation most of the soft masses decouple from the unknown physics and many predictions can be made in a model-independent fashion.

In the next two sections we describe the renormalization group analysis above (Section II) and below (Section III) $`M_{GUT}`$ in detail. We find that the number of model-independent predictions that can be obtained is related to the form of the boundary conditions at $`M_{BC}`$. General gaugino mediation boundary conditions allow arbitrary soft Higgs masses , a B-term and gaugino masses at the scale $`M_{BC}`$. We show that in this case the spectrum of the first two generations and the ratios of gaugino masses can be predicted. When only $`M_{1/2}`$ and $`B`$ are non-zero at $`M_{BC}`$ one can also predict third generation scalar masses. Finally, when $`B`$ is also set to zero one obtains the boundary conditions of Minimal Gaugino Mediation . In this case the entire superpartner spectrum can be predicted in terms of just two parameters: $`M_{1/2}`$ and $`M_{BC}`$. We conclude in Section IV.

## II Renormalization above the GUT scale

In this section we discuss the renormalization of soft mass parameters above the grand unification scale, which we take to be $`M_{GUT}=\mathrm{2\; 10}^{16}`$ GeV. We first briefly summarize the situation in a general SUSY-GUT with soft masses and then turn to gaugino dominated scenarios such as gaugino mediation or no-scale supergravity. We assume that there is a direct coupling of supersymmetry breaking to the gauginos. Then the (one-loop) “anomaly mediation”  contributions to superpartner masses are always negligible.

### A General case

A realistic GUT theory requires a number of new fields above the GUT scale for breaking the GUT symmetry, splitting the Higgs doublets and triplets, and possibly also for generating flavor. There exists a large number of different proposals for addressing all these problems, but unfortunately present day experiments do not allow us to single out a unique “GUT Standard Model”. Not knowing the exact spectrum and couplings above the GUT scale makes it impossible to perform a reliable renormalization group calculation of all superpartner masses above the GUT scale. A conservative approach would then be to parameterize our ignorance by assuming general non-universal but GUT-symmetric superpartner masses at $`M_{GUT}`$. To simplify and to avoid conflicts with experimental bounds on flavor violation one often assumes that the soft parameters are approximately flavor symmetric. This approximation can be poor for third generation scalar masses which can be significantly modified because of the large Yukawa couplings. However, the first and second generation Yukawa couplings are presumably small also above $`M_{GUT}`$ and can therefore be neglected in the running. Then the one-loop renormalization of the soft scalar masses for the first and second generation depends only on the unified gauge coupling and is flavor-universal. It is therefore possible to compute the running of these soft masses and one can make predictions if they are known at some high scale. The results of this running are well-known .

### B Gaugino domination

In gaugino-dominated scenarios the situation is different. In gaugino domination one assumes that the scalar masses as well as the tri-linear soft terms vanish at some high scale $`M_{BC}`$, and their low-energy values are generated from the renormalization group. Thus at the scale $`M_{BC}M_{GUT}`$ the non-vanishing mass parameters are the universal gaugino mass $`M_{1/2}`$ and the supersymmetry preserving and violating Higgs mass parameters $`\mu `$ and $`B`$. In addition, one could also have soft masses for the Higgs fields, but for the time being let us assume that $`m_{H_u}`$ and $`m_{H_d}`$ are zero at $`M_{BC}`$.

As we will see below, $`\mu `$ does not enter any renormalization group equation for the soft terms neither above nor below $`M_{GUT}`$. Since we do not have a physical principle which tells us the value of $`\mu `$ at the high scale, this means that there is no need to run the value of $`\mu `$. In the phenomenological analysis we simply work with its low-energy value. $`B`$ also does not enter any renormalization group equations. However, Minimal Gaugino Mediation predicts $`B=0`$ at the high scale, it is therefore important to predict the low-energy value of $`B`$ from the renormalization group running between $`M_{BC}`$ to $`M_{weak}`$.

The evolution of the unified gaugino mass between $`M_{BC}`$ and $`M_{GUT}`$ is easily determined because at one loop $`M_{1/2}`$ simply tracks the evolution of the unified gauge coupling

$$\frac{d}{dt}\frac{1}{g^2}=2b_{GUT}\frac{d}{dt}\frac{M_{1/2}}{g^2}=0.$$
(1)
Here we defined $`t=1/(16\pi ^2)\mathrm{log}(M/M_{GUT})`$. The renormalization group equations for all other soft masses above $`M_{GUT}`$ are***We define the soft mass parameters $`A`$ and $`B`$ such that they multiply the Yukawa couplings and $`\mu `$ in the Lagrangian, respectively. For example, $`_{soft}A_tY_t\mathbf{\hspace{0.17em}10\hspace{0.17em}10\hspace{0.17em}5}_{H_U}+B\mu \mathbf{\hspace{0.17em}5}_{H_U}\overline{\mathrm{𝟓}}_{H_D}`$.

$`{\displaystyle \frac{d}{dt}}m_{10}^2`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{3}{2}}{\displaystyle \frac{d}{dt}}m_{\overline{5}}^2={\displaystyle \frac{3}{2}}{\displaystyle \frac{d}{dt}}m_5^2={\displaystyle \frac{144}{5}}g^2M_{1/2}^2,`$ (2)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{d}{dt}}A_u`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{8}{7}}{\displaystyle \frac{d}{dt}}A_d=2{\displaystyle \frac{d}{dt}}B={\displaystyle \frac{192}{5}}g^2M_{1/2},`$ (3)
for the case of $`SU(5)`$ and

$`{\displaystyle \frac{d}{dt}}m_{16}^2`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{5}{4}}{\displaystyle \frac{d}{dt}}m_{10}^2=45g^2M_{1/2}^2,`$ (4)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{d}{dt}}A_{u,d}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{7}{4}}{\displaystyle \frac{d}{dt}}B=63g^2M_{1/2},`$ (5)
for $`SO(10)`$. On the right-hand side of these equations we assumed that all soft masses except $`M_{1/2}`$ are negligible. This is a very good approximation at energies near $`M_{BC}`$ where they all vanish but becomes worse if significant scalar masses are generated from the renormalization group running.

Note that all dependence on unknown couplings above the GUT scale has dropped out of Eqs. (3) and (5). The remaining model dependence lies in the choice of grand unified group and in the evolution of the GUT gauge coupling (specifically $`b_{GUT}`$).

The solutions to these renormalization group equations are most easily written by using Eq. (1) to replace $`M_{1/2}(\mu )M_{1/2}(M_{GUT})\alpha (\mu )/\alpha _{GUT}`$ and defining

$`I_4`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle _0^{t_{BC}}}g^4𝑑t=\alpha _{GUT}^2\mathrm{log}({\displaystyle \frac{M_{BC}}{M_{GUT}}}){\displaystyle \frac{1}{1\frac{b_{GUT}\alpha _{GUT}}{2\pi }\mathrm{log}(\frac{M_{BC}}{M_{GUT}})}},`$ (6)
$`I_6`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle _0^{t_{BC}}}g^6𝑑t=4\pi \alpha _{GUT}^3\mathrm{log}({\displaystyle \frac{M_{BC}}{M_{GUT}}}){\displaystyle \frac{1\frac{b_{GUT}\alpha _{GUT}}{4\pi }\mathrm{log}(\frac{M_{BC}}{M_{GUT}})}{(1\frac{b_{GUT}\alpha _{GUT}}{2\pi }\mathrm{log}(\frac{M_{BC}}{M_{GUT}}))^2}}.`$ (7)
We find for $`SU(5)`$

$`m_{10}^2`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{3}{2}}m_{\overline{5}}^2={\displaystyle \frac{3}{2}}m_5^2={\displaystyle \frac{144}{5}}M_{1/2}^2I_6,`$ (8)
$`A_u`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{8}{7}}A_d=2B={\displaystyle \frac{192}{5}}M_{1/2}I_4,`$ (9)
and for $`SO(10)`$

$`m_{16}^2`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{5}{4}}m_{10}^2=45M_{1/2}^2I_6,`$ (10)
$`A_{u,d}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{7}{4}}B=63M_{1/2}I_4,`$ (11)
where from now on $`M_{1/2}`$ stands for the unified gaugino mass evaluated at $`M_{GUT}`$.

Now all soft supersymmetry breaking at the GUT scale is determined in terms of the five parameters $`M_{1/2}`$, $`\mu `$, $`B`$, $`I_4`$ and $`I_6`$. $`I_4`$ and $`I_6`$ are given in terms of the two parameters $`b_{GUT}`$ and $`\mathrm{log}(M_{BC}/M_{GUT})`$. Note that $`I_4`$ and $`I_6`$ are small enough for our approximation (ignoring all soft masses except for the gaugino mass) to be valid unless the denominators in Eqs.( 6) and (7) go to zero. But the same vanishing denominators also appear in the evolution of the gauge coupling. Therefore our approximation is good if and only if the theory stays perturbative up to the mass scale $`M_{BC}`$. For example, for $`\frac{M_{BC}}{M_{GUT}}=10`$ perturbativity allows a beta function coefficient $`b_{GUT}`$ as large as 50. Note that this leaves sufficient room for non-minimal Higgs sectors above $`M_{GUT}`$ because the minimal $`SU(5)`$ theory only has $`b_{GUT}=3`$, an extra generation adds $`2`$ and extra adjoint superfields contribute 5. If the theory above the GUT scale has large new Yukawa couplings, for example a coupling of $`H_u`$ and $`H_d`$ to a GUT adjoint superfield, then terms proportional to scalar masses on the right hand side can make contributions to scalar masses which become important for large $`M_{BC}M_{Planck}`$. This can be seen from the numerical solutions to the renormalization group equations of the minimal $`SU(5)`$ model with gaugino mediation boundary condition presented in Ref. .

This discussion changes if we allow non-zero supersymmetry violating masses $`m_{H_u}^2`$ and $`m_{H_d}^2`$ at $`M_{BC}`$. Not only is the running of these masses very sensitive to new physics above the GUT scale (such as the doublet-triplet splitting mechanism or a non-minimal GUT Higgs sector), but also the third generation scalar masses are now model dependent because of contributions proportional to the large Yukawa couplings. Thus, in this case model-independent predictions are only possible for the first and second generation scalar masses.

## III The spectrum

In this section we discuss the superpartner masses which result from running from the compactification scale all the way down to the weak scale. Throughout the discussion we assume that the gravitino mass is larger than the gaugino masses. This assumption is important for the phenomenology of the model. Parametrically, in gaugino mediation one finds $`m_{3/2}=\sqrt{V}m_{1/2}`$ where $`V>8`$ is the volume of the extra dimensions in fundamental Planck units . We proceed by presenting three qualitatively different scenarios. All three scenarios have vanishing squark and slepton masses and A-terms at the high scale but they differ in the assumptions made about the Higgs sector. In scenario A we allow general soft Higgs mass parameters $`m_{H_u}^2`$, $`m_{H_d}^2`$, $`B`$, and $`\mu `$. In B we specialize to models with vanishing non-holomorphic masses $`m_{H_u}^2=m_{H_d}^2=0`$. And in C we also assume $`B=0`$, so that the only remaining mass parameters of the model are $`M_{1/2},\mu ,M_{BC}`$ and $`M_{GUT}`$. In the last section we also give three example superpartner spectra corresponding to representative sets of model input parameters which satisfy the Mg̃M boundary conditions.

We solve the one-loop renormalization group equations of the MSSM  below the GUT scale numerically. We include the effects of third generation Yukawa couplings and neglect the smaller Yukawa couplings. The GUT scale boundary conditions for all couplings follow from the analysis in Section II. Note that there are no threshold contributions to the supersymmetry breaking parameters in the $`\overline{DR}`$ renormalization scheme from integrating out the heavy GUT gauge bosons and gauginos. Explicitly, this follows because diagrams renormalizing the scalar masses with heavy GUT gauginos in a loop have vanishing finite pieces in $`\overline{DR}`$. At the weak scale we use a one-loop improvement for the Higgs potential  which captures the effect of top loops below the stop mass threshold. The top loops modify the coefficient of the $`(H_u^{}H_u)^2`$ quartic term and represent the dominant correction to the mass of the lightest Higgs particle. The accuracy of this approximation is to better than 10 GeV , when the running top quark mass $`m_{top}(m_{top})`$ is used for the calculation.

### A General Higgs mass parameters

When we allow Higgs masses $`m_{H_u}^2`$ and $`m_{H_d}^2`$ at the scale $`M_{BC}`$ then only the soft masses of the first two generations and gaugino masses can be predicted without knowledge of details of the GUT physics. It is convenient to use the average soft Higgs mass $`(m_{H_u}^2+m_{H_d}^2)/2`$ and the difference $`m_{H_u}^2m_{H_d}^2`$ as input parameters. The average Higgs mass does not contribute directly to first and second generation scalar masses. Indirectly, it does contribute to scalar masses through weak-scale D-terms, but for large enough $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$ these D-terms can be written universally in terms of the W and Z masses. The difference does contribute because it generates a D-term for hypercharge. This D-term is proportional to the renormalization group invariant quantity $`S`$ defined as

$$S=m_{H_u}^2m_{H_d}^2+\mathrm{Tr}(m_Q^22m_U^2+m_E^2+m_D^2m_L^2)=m_{H_u}^2m_{H_d}^2|_{M_{GUT}},$$
(12)
where the second equality is valid only at the GUT scale because the squark and slepton masses in the trace are GUT symmetric and therefore drop out of the equation. The D-term mass shift for each scalar at the weak scale is simply

$$\delta m_i^2=\frac{6}{5}y_iS_{t_{weak}}^0g_1^2𝑑t.078y_iS.$$
(13)
We first specialize to the case with no D-term for hypercharge, i.e. $`m_{H_u}^2=m_{H_d}^2`$ at $`M_{GUT}`$. Figure 1 illustrates the evolution of soft masses for the first two generations and the gauginos from $`M_{BC}>M_{GUT}`$ to the weak scale. At $`M_{BC}`$ the soft masses vanish and evolve according to $`SU(5)`$ RGEs down to $`M_{GUT}`$. For the purpose of this plot we assumed $`SU(5)`$ unification therefore the $`\overline{\mathrm{𝟓}}`$ and $`\mathrm{𝟏𝟎}`$ evolve at different rates. The gaugino masses are unified between $`M_{BC}`$ and $`M_{GUT}`$. Below $`M_{GUT}`$ the RGEs respect only the symmetries of the Standard Model. The evolution depends on the gauge charges of the fields. Gaugino masses and scalar masses are proportional to the squares of the gauge couplings. As a result, colored fields are always heaviest and have masses about four times larger than fields with only hypercharge.

The effects of the running above the GUT scale are depicted in Figure 2. Scalar masses receive additive GUT-symmetric contributions from the running above $`M_{GUT}`$. This effect is most important for scalars which do not receive large masses from running below the GUT scale. The mass shifts are proportional to the Casimirs of the corresponding unified representations, thus they are larger in $`SO(10)`$ compared to $`SU(5)`$.

A non-vanishing D-term introduces the additional input parameter $`S`$. The $`S`$-dependence of the first and second generation scalar masses is easily accounted for by using equation (13). The effects of the D-term are largest for the lightest superpartners. In Figure 3 we show the slepton masses for the case of $`SU(5)`$ GUT group and three different values of $`S`$. The mass shifts from the hypercharge D-term are in opposite directions for left- and right-handed sleptons.

Note that the hypercharge D-terms also contribute to stau masses and may be responsible for lifting the right-handed stau mass above the Bino mass in models where $`M_{BC}=M_{GUT}`$. This has been used in Refs. .

### B $`m_{H_u}^2=m_{H_d}^2=0`$

When the Higgs masses are zero at $`M_{BC}`$, the Yukawa couplings do not significantly contribute to the running above the GUT scale. Therefore the running for all three generations can be computed model independently. For fixed $`M_{1/2}`$ and $`M_{BC}`$, $`B`$ and $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$ are related at the minimum of the Higgs potential. Thus, we can express $`B`$ in terms of $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$ or vice versa.

The relation between $`B`$ at the high scale and $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$ is depicted in Figure 4 for different values of $`M_{BC}`$. It is clear that a value of $`B`$ can be picked for any values of $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$ and $`M_{BC}`$. It is therefore more convenient to treat $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$ as an input parameter, as is usually done in analyzing supersymmetric theories.

Since the ratio of the bottom and top Yukawa couplings depends on $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$ the masses of the third generation particles vary with $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$. In particular, the mixing between left- and right-handed sleptons increases with $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$. As a result one of the mass eigenstates becomes lighter with increasing $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$. Figure 5 illustrates this strong dependence in case of the right-handed stau.

### C $`m_{H_u}^2=m_{H_d}^2=0`$, $`B=0`$

In minimal gaugino mediation all soft terms except for $`M_{1/2}`$ (and $`\mu `$) vanish at $`M_{BC}`$. The values of $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$ which correspond to $`B=0`$ can be determined easily from Figure 4 as a function of $`M_{BC}`$. The two remaining parameters are $`M_{1/2}`$ and the scale $`M_{BC}`$. With only two free parameters the theory is highly predictive. To a good approximation $`M_{1/2}`$ sets the linear scale of all superpartner masses.Note that the lightest Higgs mass does not scale linearly with $`M_{1/2}`$, because at tree level the Higgs mass is bounded by $`M_Z`$. Radiative corrections to the Higgs potential from top and stop loops introduce a logarithmic dependence on $`M_{1/2}`$. The second parameter, $`\mathrm{log}(M_{BC}/M_{GUT})`$, increases the slepton masses relative to gaugino masses. A more detailed discussion of Mg̃M is contained in Refs. .

For demonstration, we present the spectra for three sample points of the parameter space in Table I. The first point with $`M_{1/2}=200`$ GeV (“light Mg̃M” scenario) is in the lower range of experimentally allowed values of $`M_{1/2}`$. This point will be probed in the near future by the ongoing Higgs search at LEP II. The lighter chargino and the second lightest neutralino can be observed at the Tevatron in the $`pp\chi _1^\pm \chi _2^03l`$ channel. While the chargino and neutralino in the “light” scenario might evade Run II they are certainly within the reach of Run III . Our second and third points, with $`M_{1/2}=300,500`$ GeV – “intermediate Mg̃M” and “heavy Mg̃M” scenarios – cannot be tested at LEP II, but the lightest Higgs is within the reach of Run II at the Tevatron. The superpartners corresponding to the second and third study points are too heavy to be seen at LEP or the Tevatron, but they are easily within the reach of both LHC and NLC.

One can set an upper bound on $`M_{1/2}\begin{array}{c}<\hfill \\ \hfill \end{array}600`$ GeV by requiring that the relic abundance of Mg̃M Bino-LSPs does not contribute more than 0.1 to 0.3 to critical density . We find that in our “light” scenario Binos are not abundant enough to account for all cold dark matter, whereas the “intermediate” and “heavy” scenarios are in the preferred region.

## IV Conclusions

We conclude that the MSSM with gaugino mediated supersymmetry breaking is not only phenomenologically viable, but it also has a number of very attractive features:

* The model solves the supersymmetric flavor problem because the squark and slepton masses which are generated from the renormalization group evolution are sufficiently degenerate (and aligned ).
* It is theoretically well motivated. The vanishing of the scalar masses and the $`A`$ terms at high scales is a natural prediction of models with extra dimensions where MSSM gauge fields are bulk fields, whereas the MSSM matter fields and the supersymmetry breaking mechanism are localized on separate branes.
* The Bino-LSP of these models makes a good cold dark matter candidate. Cosmic abundances in the range $`\mathrm{\Omega }h^2=.1.3`$ are obtained for right-handed selectron masses in the range $`150250`$ GeV as shown in .
* The model is very predictive because superpartner masses depend only on a small number of input parameters. For example, in Mg̃M all superpartner masses can be computed in terms of two parameters $`M_{1/2}`$ and $`\mathrm{log}(M_{BC}/M_{GUT})`$. In the more general case with non-vanishing soft Higgs masses at $`M_{BC}`$ all gaugino masses and the first and second generation scalar masses are predicted in terms of the same two parameters and possibly a hypercharge D-term $`S`$.

In our analysis of the model the renormalization group running above the GUT scale was essential for determining the masses of the lightest scalar superpartners. Its most important effect is that it raises the stau mass above the mass of the Bino. Precise measurements of the superpartner masses would allow a determination of the small contributions from running above the GUT scale . Consistency with the gaugino mediation predictions would constitute a decisive test of the scenario and allow an indirect measurement of the GUT gauge group.

The framework is predictive because at the one-loop level above-the-GUT-scale model dependence decouples from the soft supersymmetry breaking terms. This is a consequence of vanishing scalar masses at $`M_{BC}`$ and would not be true for more general SUSY GUTs. If the soft Higgs mass parameters $`m_{H_u}^2`$ and $`m_{H_d}^2`$ are non-vanishing at the GUT scale then the third generation scalar masses and Higgs masses become model-dependent, but first and second generation scalar masses as well as gaugino masses can still be predicted. In this case the hypercharge D-term proportional to $`m_{H_u}^2m_{H_d}^2`$ also plays an important role in determining the lightest superpartner masses.

We have left studies of the collider phenomenology of these models for future work. In particular, it would be interesting to determine the most promising signatures which allow tests of this scenario and the implications for future colliders. As part of this analysis a more accurate treatment of the renormalization group (two-loops) and weak scale threshold effects would allow sharpened predictions for superpartner masses. This more accurate analysis is necessary for comparison of our Higgs mass prediction with LEP II bounds. We also expect interesting predictions for (and constraints from) flavor violating transitions such as $`bs\gamma `$ and $`\mu e\gamma `$.

###### Acknowledgements.

We thank Howard Baer, Markus Luty, Elazzar Kaplan, Konstantin Matchev, Michael Peskin, Raman Sundrum, and Jim Wells for useful discussions. MS is supported by the DOE under contract DE-AC03-76SF00515. WS is supported by the DOE under contract DOE-FG03-97ER40506.


text:
# The Orbital Light Curve of Aquila X-1

## 1 Introduction

Soft X–ray Transients (SXTs, also called X–ray nova) are distinguished from other X–ray binaries by their transient outbursts and soft X–ray spectra (Tanaka & Lewin 1995; Tanaka & Shibazaki 1996; Chen, Schrader & Livio 1997). During the outbursts, which recur irregularly at intervals of 1 to 50 years, their X–ray luminosity increases by a factor of $`10^4`$$`10^6`$ in a few days and then decays back to minimum on an e-folding time scale of $`30`$ days. There is a concomitant increase in their optical luminosity by a factor of $`10^2`$. The leading model for the outbursts is the Disk Instability Model (e.g., Cannizzo et al. 1998). In this model, gas transferred from the normal star in the binary builds up in a disk around the the compact star. As the temperature and optical depth in the disk increase, the viscosity increases, eventually setting off a global instability that increases the mass flow through the disk, releasing accretion energy and causing the X–ray outburst. Between the X–ray outbursts, when the X–ray flux is low, the masses and dimensions of SXTs can be measured with some confidence. A startling result of these measurements has been the discovery that the compact star is a black hole in $``$75% of the SXTs (e.g. see Charles 1998).

Aql X-1 is a particularly interesting SXT because of its frequent outbursts — the recurrence time is $``$ 1 year (Priedhorsky & Terrell 1984; Kitamoto et al. 1993) – and because its X–ray light curve displays richly complex behavior: (1) It shows “type I” X–ray bursts, demonstrating that the compact star is a neutron star (Koyama et al. 1981, Zhang et al. 1998b, Yu et al. 1999); (2) Nearly coherent oscillations at $``$548 Hz were detected during one type I burst and are likely related to the spin period of the neutron star (Zhang et al. 1998b); (3) kHz QPOs have been discovered with frequencies in the range 670–870 Hz (Zhang et al. 1998b; Yu et al. 1999); (4) A hard power–law tail extending to at least $`>`$100 keV has been detected during outbursts (Harmon et al. 1996); and (5) A sudden spectral hardening of the X–rays has been observed during the decline from an outburst and has been interpreted as the onset of a “magnetic propeller” state (Zhang et al. 1998a; Campana et al. 1998). The inferred strength of the magnetic field, $`1`$$`6\times 10^8`$ Gauss, is remarkably low for a neutron star. The spectral hardening may also be enhanced by the transition into an ADAF state (Shahbaz et al. 1998b; Zhang et al. 1998a).

The optical counterpart to Aql X-1 is V1333 Aql (Thorstensen, Charles & Bowyer 1978). Two estimates for its orbital period have appeared in the literature, 18.9479 h (Chevalier & Ilovaisky 1991, 1998) and 19.30 h (Shahbaz et al. 1998a). The former was derived from the outburst light curve, which has a single maximum per orbit; the later period was derived from the quiescent light curve, which has two humps per orbit. The single hump seen during outburst has been interpreted as being due to reprocessed X–rays in an asymmetric disk and/or the secondary star. The double hump modulation seen in quiescence is interpreted as ellipsoidal variations from the Roche–lobe filling secondary star. If correct, the difference in periods is puzzling; photometric modulations caused by a non–axisymmetric disk during an outburst tend to have a longer period than the orbital period.

Garcia et al. (1999) obtained V–band photometry of Aql X-1 in outburst and K photometry in quiescence. Their outburst data confirm the strong ($``$0.6 mag) single–humped light curve seen by Chevalier & Ilovaisky (1991) and Robinson & Young (1998), though their data were not sufficient to refine the orbital period. The quiescent K photometry did not show any clear evidence for a modulation, suggesting a low orbital inclination. They also obtained spectroscopy in quiescence that revealed a weak, low–amplitude modulation of the absorption line radial velocities, also implying a low orbital inclination. While this agrees with the analysis of the quiescent photometric modulations by Shahbaz et al. (1998a), it is again puzzling: the large amplitude modulations seen in the outburst state suggest a high inclination. Furthermore, Garcia et al. (1999) note that the relative phasing of the outburst maxima they observed and the quiescent minima from the Shahbaz et al. study disagree. Clearly, the interpretation of the modulations in the light curves is in a confused state.

Some of this confusion was resolved when Callanan et al. (1999) obtained high-resolution images of Aql X-1 showing that the object previously thought to be Aql X-1 is actually two stars separated by only 0$`\stackrel{}{\mathrm{.}}`$46. Chevalier et al. (1999) subsequently showed that the fainter of the two stars is the counterpart of Aql X-1, and that 88% of the V–band light is from the line–of–sight contaminating star. The presence of a large amount of contaminating light has two immediate consequences: (1) The fractional amplitude of any photometric variations have been substantially underestimated; this leads to an underestimate of the inclination based on the amplitude of the ellipsoidal variations; and (2) previous determinations of the spectral type of the secondary star (K0 by Thorstensen et al 1978; K1 by Shahbaz et al. 1997) are incorrect. Based on its photometric colors, the spectral type of the secondary star is K6–M0 (Chevalier et al. 1999).

In this paper we present new optical photometry of Aql X-1 obtained during quiescence, and use these data to revise the orbital period and constrain the inclination of the binary system. In §2 we describe the data acquisition and calibration. In §3 we derive a revised orbital period from the light curve modulations, and compare it with previous published values. Using the estimates of Chevalier et al. (1999), we then correct the light curves for the contaminating light from the nearby field star. In §4, the contamination–corrected quiescent light curves are modeled as ellipsoidal variations and an estimate for the binary system inclination is derived. The outburst light curve of Garcia et al. (1999) is also investigated; we model the outburst photometry with a reflection/heating effect of the companion star. Section 5 summarizes our results.

## 2 Observations and Data Calibration

We observed Aql X-1 on 1998 June 24 – 28 UTC. Figure 1 shows the X–ray light curve of Aql X-1 in 1998, obtained with the All Sky Monitor on the Rossi X–Ray Timing Explorer 111ASM light curves are publically available at http://space.mit.edu/XTE/ASM\_lc.html and at http://heasarc.gsfc.nasa.gov/docs/xte/asm\_products.html., with the times of our observations marked by arrows. Aql X-1 erupted in 1998 March but our observations began more than 40 days after the end of the eruption and Aql X-1 was fully in quiescence.

We measured the optical light curve at the Cassegrain focus of the 2.1-m telescope at McDonald Observatory using a Tektronix CCD, which produced an image scale of 0$`\stackrel{}{\mathrm{.}}`$352/pixel. The observing pattern was 10 images in the R band followed by 3 images in the I band, repeated ad paucas noctis. All exposures were two minutes in duration, yielding an integrated S/N of $`100`$ in the R band and $`75`$ in the I band. Observing conditions were generally good, with dark skies and 1$`\stackrel{}{\mathrm{.}}`$5 – 2$`\stackrel{}{\mathrm{.}}`$0 seeing, although occasional patchy clouds and smoke from nearby forest fires were present. The telescope tracking was, however, poor, and contributed significantly to the image point–spread function. Frames with poor image quality ($`>`$2$`\stackrel{}{\mathrm{.}}`$08) proved to be unusable because of contamination from nearby field stars, resulting in the loss of roughly a third of the data. We obtained a total of 312 usable images in the R band and 85 in the I band.

We extracted instrumental magnitudes for Aql X-1 and four local comparison stars using the DAOPHOT routine in IRAF (Stetson 1987, 1990). The local comparison stars did not vary in our data, nor are they listed as variable stars by Reynolds, Thorstensen & Sherman (1999) in their study of 6104 stars near Aql X-1. Aql X-1 lies in a very crowded field and is separated by only 2$`\stackrel{}{\mathrm{.}}`$2 and 2$`\stackrel{}{\mathrm{.}}`$4 from two nearby field stars (see Figure 2); and since these stars are only two and three magnitudes fainter than Aql X-1, it was essential to extract the flux from Aql X-1 by fitting a point spread function to the images. We used two iterations of the DAOPHOT point spread function fitting routine; a third iteration did not improve the precision of the photometry. The field star separated from Aql X-1 by only 0$`\stackrel{}{\mathrm{.}}`$46 is not resolved from Aql X-1 in our data. Our measurements give the sum of the flux from this star and Aql X-1 (called stars e and a by Chevalier et al. ). We calibrated the fluxes by observing Landolt standards (Landolt 1992) and then used the conversions from R and I magnitudes to fluxes given in Lamla (1982). The RMS scatter in the final measured fluxes from the local comparison stars is $`<0.56`$%.

We emphasize that the use of point spread functions to extract the flux from Aql X-1 was crucial to the success of this project. The amplitude of the variations of the combined flux from Aql X-1 and its 0$`\stackrel{}{\mathrm{.}}`$46 companion is small, and ordinary aperture photometry would have allowed significant and variable contamination from the other nearby stars, producing unacceptably large errors in the flux measurements.

## 3 The Light Curves

### 3.1 The Orbital Period

The observed R–band light curve varies by about 0.05 mag peak–to–peak. We searched for periodicities in the light curve using an assortment of methods, including the phase–dispersion minimization method, discrete Fourier transforms, Lomb–Scargle periodograms, and “clean” power density spectra.222 The PDM, clean and Lomb–Scargle periodogram algorithms were contained in the software “PERIOD” V4.2 written by V.S. Dhillon and provided by Starlink: http://star-www.rl.ac.uk/cgi-store/storetop. All showed a multiplicity of periods, the strongest being near 0.6, 1.6, 2.3 and 2.6 cycles per day. However, it was obvious that the effects of a 1–day sampling alias dominate the analysis. Figure 3 shows the low–frequency portion of the power spectrum calculated from the R–band light curve. Nearly all features in the power spectrum can be ascribed to aliases of the fundamental frequency and its harmonics. The “tree” diagram in the lower panel of the figure marks the positions of the fundamental, the first harmonic, and their 1–day aliases and demonstrates that we account for every large peak in the power spectrum with just one number: the fundamental frequency.

We used a physically motivated method to extract the period of the fundamental. Assuming that the light curve is dominated by ellipsoidal variations that produce a signal at the orbital period and half the orbital period, we fit the light curve with a model consisting of the sum of two sinusoids whose amplitudes and phases are free, but whose frequencies are locked at $`f_0`$ and $`f_1=2f_0`$, where $`f_0`$ is the frequency of the fundamental and $`f_1`$ is the frequency of the first harmonic. The minimum $`\chi ^2`$ of the fit gives the orbital period. This 2–sine fit produced a periodogram similar to the classical (1–sine) periodogram and the Fourier transform power spectrum in that it had minima at nearly the same frequencies, but it contained additional minima and the minima were substantially different in relative depth, e.g., the lowest minima in the classical periodogram was near 0.6 c/d, while in the 2–sine fit the minimum was near 1.3 c/d. To test how well our model reproduces the observations, we subtracted the best fit model from the light curve and recomputed the power spectrum. The power spectrum of this “pre–whitened” data is also shown, to scale, in Fig 3. The remarkable reduction of power verifies that nearly all the power is contained in just the fundamental and its first harmonic.

The R–band light curve yielded a fundamental frequency of 1.283 cycles/day, corresponding to an orbital period of 18.71 $`\pm `$ 0.06 h. The upper light curve in Figure 4 shows the R–band light curve folded at this period along with the best fitting 2–sine fit. The (marginally) deeper of the two minima in the folded light curve occured at HJD 2450988.8204, which we define as phase zero. All phases in this paper use this period and definition of phase zero. The reduced $`\chi ^2`$ of the fit was 1.27 with 306 degrees of freedom. The $`1\sigma `$ uncertainties were derived from the period interval encompassing the reduced $`\chi _{min}^2`$ \+ 1. To check the robustness of this period measurement, we recomputed the fit giving all data points equal weight, and then again after removing three apparent outliers: The period changed by less than 0.02 h. As a further test, we fit the comparison star light curve with the 2–sine model. When forced to have a frequency $`f_0`$ near 1.283 c/s (the frequency found in the Aql X-1 light curve), the individual amplitudes of the 2 sines in the model fit were $`<`$0.4% and $`<`$0.2%; in contrast, the amplitudes for the 2 sines when fit to the Aql X-1 light curve were both $``$1.3%.

The I–band light curve has fewer and noisier data points, and the $`\chi ^2`$ of the 2–sine fit was worse $`(\chi ^2=2.77)`$. Nevertheless, the period derived from the I–band light curve, 18.85$`\pm `$ 0.06 h, is not much different from the R–band estimate, and the formal uncertainty is the same because the amplitude of the modulation is larger in the I–band than in the R–band.

### 3.2 Comparison with Previous Determinations of the Orbital Period

The orbital period determined from our data, 18.71$`\pm `$0.06 h, is $``$1.3% shorter than the 18.9479 h period found by Chevalier & Ilovaisky (1998). While this is nearly a 4$`\sigma `$ difference, we do not consider the difference significant because the quoted uncertainty in our period does not include systematic errors introduced by, for example, intrinsic variability, a non–white power spectrum, or the one-day aliasing.

Chevalier & Ilovaisky (1998) also found that additional photometry taken while Aql X-1 was in quiescence agrees with the orbital period determined from outburst data to within 0.02%. They conclude that the period determined using outburst data is the orbital period. Our result supports this interpretation.

If we use the time of the minimum of the outburst light curve given by Garcia et al. (1999) as the definition of phase zero (inferior conjunction of the secondary star) and the orbital period given by Chevalier & Ilovaisky (1998), we can project their ephemeris onto our observations and compare the relative phasing. Using $`T_0`$=2450282.220 $`\pm `$0.003 HJD and period 0.789498$`\pm `$0.000 010 d, we find that the observed time of minimum in our data, HJD 2450988.8204, is at phase 0.000$`\pm `$0.012, in excellent agreement with expectations. This agreement in phasing further supports our conclusion that the orbital period is 18.9479 hours.

The photometric period reported by Shahbaz et al. (1998a), 19.30$`\pm `$0.05 h, cannot be the orbital period of Aql X-1. Is it a superhump period? Superhumps are quasi–periodic modulations in the outburst light curves, most likely caused by a precessing elliptical accretion disk and excited by a tidal resonance with the secondary star (see Warner 1995). Superhump periods are typically a few percent larger than the orbital period in the SU UMa cataclysmic variable stars. If one naively extrapolates the orbital period–superhump period relation for the SU UMa stars to Aql X-1, the predicted difference between the orbital period and superhump period is $``$50%, far greater than the observed 1.9% difference. Furthermore, the superhump models require the accretion disk to extend out to the 3:1 tidal resonance, and this is only possible for binaries with extreme mass ratios, $`q\stackrel{<}{}0.22`$. For Aql X-1, we can estimate a value for $`q`$ by assuming the primary is a neutron star with mass 1.4$`M_{\mathrm{}}`$ and the secondary is a K7 V star (Chevalier et al. 1999) with mass 0.6$`M_{\mathrm{}}`$. This gives $`q=0.43`$, far above the upper limit allowed for the tidal resonance that excites superhumps. Even for a mass ratio near $`q`$=1/3, which we prefer because this is more appropriate for an evolved secondary star that fills its Roche lobe, the mass ratio remains too high for the superhump interpretation. Thus it is unlikely that the period difference can be ascribed to a superhump phenomenon. Given the small amplitude of the variations in the light curve of Aql X-1, the crowded field, and the strong 1-day aliases, we suspect that the 19.3 h period is spurious.

### 3.3 The Uncontaminated Light Curve

The folded light curve at the top of Figure 4 includes flux from the field star 0$`\stackrel{}{\mathrm{.}}`$46 away from Aql X-1. According to Chevalier et al. (1999) the field star contributes 88% of the flux in the V band and 77.5% of the flux in the I band. To correct the I–band light curve for this contamination we simply subtracted 77.5% of the mean flux from the light curve. To correct the R–band light curve we linearly interpolated between the V– and I–band magnitudes of the field star given by Chevalier et al. (1999) and then applied a correction of 0.105 $`\pm `$0.015 mag to compensate for the intrinsic color of the field star (estimated to be a late–G to early K type star by Chevalier et al. 1999). We estimate that 83$`\pm 2`$% of the flux in the R–band is contamination from the field star, where the estimated standard deviation comes partly from the estimated measurement error and partly from uncertainty about the orbital phase and therefore the brightness of Aql X-1 at the time of the measurements. The lower light curve in Figure 4 is the R–band light curve after the flux from the field star has been removed. The amplitude of the modulation in the uncorrected R–band light curve is $``$4.2% peak–to–peak, but after subtracting the contribution from the contaminating star, the modulation amplitude jumps to $`25\pm 3`$%.

## 4 Modeling the Orbital Modulation

### 4.1 The Quiescent Light Curve

The quiescent light curve shown in Fig. 4 has two humps per orbital period, which we interpret as ellipsoidal variations of the late K star. The ellipsoidal variations are, however, clearly distorted since the two humps have unequal maxima. The source of the distortion is unknown but there are two likely candidates, star spots on the K star and non-axisymmetries in the accretion disk around the neutron star. With few exceptions the dominant effect of both distortions is to increase the amplitude of one ellipsoidal hump with respect to the other. Thus, fitting an ellipsoidal light curve to the larger hump is likely to overestimate the true amplitude of the ellipsoidal variation and will, therefore, yield an upper limit to the orbital inclination. Conversely, fitting an ellipsoidal light curve to the smaller hump will yield a lower limit to the inclination.

We fit the contamination–corrected R–band light curve of Aql X-1 with synthetic light curves calculated from an updated and rewritten version of the light curve synthesis program discussed by Zhang et al. (1986). We adopted a blackbody spectral distribution with a temperature of 4000 K for the late K star, and used a gravity darkening coefficient of $`\beta =0.08`$ and linear limb darkening coefficients of $`u=0.8`$ and $`u=0.7`$ for the R–band and I–band light curves respectively (Claret 1998). The derived orbital inclinations are relatively insensitive to any of these parameters. Changing the temperature to 5000 K, for example, changed the derived orbital inclinations by only 2 – $`3^{}`$. The ratio of the masses, $`q=M_K/M_\mathrm{n}`$, must be less than 1 since we do not observe dynamically unstable mass transfer, and it must be greater than 0.1 because the mass accreting star is a neutron star. If the K star is a stripped giant, the mass ratio should be close to $`q=1/3`$. The abundant evidence for mass transfer demands that the K star fill or nearly fill its Roche Lobe.

Figures 5 and 6 show the fits of synthetic light curves to the R– and I–band light curves for models in which $`q=1/3`$ and the K star is the sole contributor to the light curve. The orbital inclinations derived from the R–band light curve are $`36^{}`$ and $`55^{}`$ for the smaller and larger humps respectively, and the inclinations from the I–band light curve are $`58^{}`$ and $`75^{}`$.

For several reasons we believe that the orbital inclination derived from the fit to the smaller hump in the R–band light curve is the most robust of the inclination measurements, but that it should be interpreted only as a lower limit to the orbital inclination. First, the quality and the quantity of the R–band data are much higher than the I–band data, so we strongly prefer the fits to the R–band light curves. Second, although the inclinations derived from fits to the larger hump depend fairly sensitively on the adopted mass ratio, the inclinations derived from the small hump are relatively insensitive. The inclination derived from the small hump in the R–band light curve ranged only from $`33^{}`$ to $`41^{}`$ over the extreme range of permissible mass ratios. Third, the accretion disk certainly contributes some of the flux from Aql X-1 in the R band, if for no other reason than H$`\alpha `$ emission is observed in the spectrum of Aql X-1. (Note that the true equivalent width of the H$`\alpha `$ emission line becomes almost 6 times greater than the observed equivalent width when flux from the contaminating field star is removed; the equivalent width is boosted from $``$5.2Å \[Shahbaz et al. 1997; 1998b\] to $``$30Å). The effect of ignoring the disk emission is to make the derived orbital inclination too small.

We conclude that the orbital inclination of Aql X-1 is greater than $`36^{}`$. This inclination is greater than the upper limits of $`31^{}`$ given by Garcia et al. (1999) and 20–30 (90% confidence interval) given by Shahbaz et al. (1998a). The limits derived in these papers were based on modeling the ellipsoidal variations in the quiescent K–band and I–band light curves, respectively. Setting aside the fact that the variations were only marginally detected in the light curves, there is a simple explanation for the discrepancy: We have removed the contaminating flux from the field star 0$`\stackrel{}{\mathrm{.}}`$46 away from Aql X-1. When the contaminating flux is removed, the amplitude of the ellipsoidal variations increases substantially, and with it the derived inclination.

Garcia et al. (1999) derived an upper limit of $`12^{}`$ for the orbital inclination from their measurement of the upper limit to the amplitude of any radial velocity variations of the secondary star ($`<`$48 km s-1) and the assumption that Aql X-1 is similar to Cen X-4, a neutron star SXT. This upper limit is much lower than our lower limit on the inclination. We believe this discrepancy is again due to the contaminating flux from the field star: The (presumably) non–varying radial velocity of the contaminating star biases measurements of orbital radial velocity variations towards lower values. Likewise, because the contaminating star is probably a late G–type star (Chevalier et al. 1999), the lines from the contaminating star and the secondary star in Aql X-1 will blend, thus making any measurement of the rotational broadening of the absorption lines highly suspect. Shahbaz et al. (1997) found a rotational broadening of the secondary star’s absorption lines of $`V_{rot}\mathrm{sin}i=62_{20}^{+30}`$ km s-1. Since the resolution of their spectrograms was 165 km s-1 and since the spectrum is bended, this value must be treated with skepticism. Also, the non–detection of the Li 6707 Å line by Garcia et al. (1999) is not significant — if one boosts their detection threshold of $``$0.1 Å equivalent width by a factor of $``$6 to compensate for the contaminating flux, then the equivalent width of lithium in Aql X-1 is consistent with that found for Cen X-4.

Shahbaz et al. (1997) found that the full–width at half–maximum of the H$`\alpha `$ emission line is broader in Aql X-1 than in Cen X–4. The FWHM should not be significantly biased by the presence of the contaminating star, so inclinations based on velocity widths should remain valid. They derived an inclination of $``$50, which is entirely consistent with our measurement. As noted by Shahbaz et al. however, any gas with non–Keplerian motions that contributes to the emission line in Aql X-1 would weaken this argument. Finally, Garcia et al. (1999) estimated that the inclination must be roughly $``$70 to account for the large amplitude of the variations in the outburst light curve of Aql X-1. We conclude that the orbital inclination of Aql X-1 cannot be small and, indeed, must be greater than $`36^{}`$.

### 4.2 The Outburst Light Curve

Figure 7 shows the V-band light curve of Aql X-1 obtained by Garcia et al. (1999) in 1996 July during a weak, flat-topped outburst. In contrast to the light curve at minimum light, the outburst light curve has a single maximum (for additional examples, see Robinson & Young 1997 and Chevalier & Ilovaisky 1991). As noted earlier, if we adopt the orbital period of Chevalier et al. (1998), we find that the minimum of the V-band light curve is precisely in phase ($`\mathrm{\Delta }\varphi <0.012`$) with the $`\varphi =0`$ minimum of our quiescent light curve, which was obtained two years later. This strongly suggests that the outburst light curve is caused by heating of the secondary star by flux from the neutron star and accretion disk.

Because the outburst light curve was obtained over several nights and because it is distorted by flickering, fits of refined models to the light curve are unwarranted. Instead we have calculated a synthetic light curve from a a simple model in which a late K–type star fills its Roche lobe and is heated by flux from the neutron star. The model has an orbital inclination of $`40^{}`$, a mass ratio of $`q=1/3`$, and a luminosity ratio $`L_\mathrm{n}/L_K20`$. We have no information about the scale of the binary system, but if the luminosity of the highly irradiated K star is $`10L_{}`$, the luminosity of the neutron star would be $`L_\mathrm{n}10^{36}\text{ergs s}^1`$, not an unreasonable luminosity for this outburst.

The fit of the model to the light curve is shown in Figure 7. While the fit is hardly perfect, the model successfully reproduces the shape, amplitude and phasing of the observed light curve. Furthermore, the inclination is consistent with the inclination derived from the ellipsoidal variations, thus solving the puzzle noticed by Garcia et al. (1999): the large amplitude of the variations seen during outburst requires a much higher orbital inclination than was originally inferred from fits to the ellipsoidal variations in the quiescent photometry (though an inclination as large as $``$70 is not necessary). We therefore conclude that the optical light curve of Aql X-1 was dominated by heating of the secondary star during the July 1996 eruption.

## 5 Summary

We have confirmed the presence of a double–humped orbital modulation in the quiescent light curve of Aql X-1. Our orbital period estimate of 18.71 h is slightly shorter than, but consistent with, the 18.95 h period found by Chevalier & Ilovaisky (1998). A single orbital period, 0.789498 d, fits all the available light curves during both quiescence and outburst.

After subtracting the contaminating flux from a field star 0$`\stackrel{}{\mathrm{.}}`$46 away from Aql X-1, the peak-to-peak amplitude of the double–humped modulation is $`0.25`$ mag. The modulation is caused by ellipsoidal variations of the K star in the system. The ellipsoidal variations are distorted but do, nevertheless, yield a lower limit to the orbital inclination of Aql X-1. We find that the inclination must be greater than $`36^{}`$.

In outburst, the orbital light curve contains a single, large–amplitude hump. A synthetic light curve produced by an irradiated, late–K star provides a good match to the outburst light curve observed by Garcia et al. (1999). Further support for the heated secondary star model comes from the excellent phase agreement between the outburst and quiescence photometric variations. During outbursts, the optical light is most likely dominated by the heating of the K–type secondary star.

We thank Drs. Mike Garcia and Paul Callanan for their outburst photometry and for general helpful discussions. This work was supported in part by the NSF through grant AST–9731416. This paper made use of results provided by the ASM/RXTE teams at MIT and at the RXTE SOF and GOF at NASA’s GSFC.


text:
# Using the value of 𝛽 to help determine 𝛾 from 𝐵 decays

## Abstract

It has been pointed out by Gronau and Rosner that the angle $`\gamma `$ of the unitarity triangle could be determined by combining future results on $`B_s`$ and $`B_d`$ decays to $`K\pi `$. Here we show that it is important to include in the analysis the information on the phase $`\beta `$ which will be determined in the near future. Omitting this information could lead to an error as large as $`8^{}`$ in $`\gamma `$.

preprint:

A large number of experiments have been proposed to determine the phase $`\gamma =Arg(V_{ub}^{})`$ in the CKM matrix . Before any of these experiments is completed it is likely that there will be a good measurement of $`\mathrm{sin}2\beta `$. In many cases using the value of $`\beta =Arg(V_{td}^{})`$ derived from $`\mathrm{sin}2\beta `$ can improve possible determinations of $`\gamma `$. We illustrate this for the case of a recent proposal by Gronau and Rosner  to determine $`\gamma `$ by using U-spin symmetry (the exchange of $`s`$ and $`d`$ quarks) to relate the decays $`B^0K^+\pi ^{}`$ to $`B_sK^{}\pi ^+`$. Combining the rate of these decays with the rate for $`B^+K^0\pi ^+`$ the value of $`\gamma `$ could be obtained. We assume throughout the constraints of the CKM model.

The tree amplitude for $`B^0`$ ($`B_s`$) decay is proportional to $`V_{ub}^{}V_{ud}`$ ($`V_{ub}^{}V_{us}`$). The penguin amplitude is dominated by the virtual $`t`$ quark and is proportional to $`V_{tb}^{}V_{ts}`$ ($`V_{tb}^{}V_{td}`$). Their approximation is to assume that the decay $`B^+K^0\pi ^+`$ is purely penguin because only the penguin gives $`bs\overline{d}d`$. We then find for the decay amplitudes

$`A(B^+K^0\pi ^+)`$ $`=`$ $`P,`$ (2)
$`A(B^0K^+\pi ^{})`$ $`=`$ $`Te^{i(\delta +\gamma )}+P,`$ (3)
$`A(B_sK^{}\pi ^+)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\stackrel{~}{\lambda }}}T^{}e^{i(\delta ^{}+\gamma )}P^{}\left|{\displaystyle \frac{V_{td}}{V_{ts}}}\right|e^{i\beta };`$ (4)
where $`\stackrel{~}{\lambda }\left|V_{us}/V_{ud}\right|0.226`$. $`\left|V_{td}/V_{ts}\right|`$ is completely determined in terms of $`\beta `$, $`\gamma `$, and $`\stackrel{~}{\lambda }`$. The U-spin approximation is $`P^{}=P`$, $`T^{}=T`$, and $`\delta ^{}=\delta `$.

In Ref.  unitarity is used to set

$$V_{tb}^{}V_{ti}=\left(V_{cb}^{}V_{ci}+V_{ub}^{}V_{ui}\right),$$
(5)
for $`i=d,s`$. Thus part of what we have called the penguin is now in the $`V_{ub}^{}V_{ui}`$ term and combined with the tree; therefore, they get

$`A(B^+K^0\pi ^+)`$ $`=`$ $`\overline{P},`$ (7)
$`A(B^0K^+\pi ^{})`$ $`=`$ $`\overline{T}e^{i(\overline{\delta }+\gamma )}+\overline{P},`$ (8)
$`A(B_sK^{}\pi ^+)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\stackrel{~}{\lambda }}}\overline{T}^{}e^{i(\overline{\delta }^{}+\gamma )}\stackrel{~}{\lambda }\overline{P}^{};`$ (9)
where $`\overline{\delta }`$ and $`\overline{\delta }^{}`$ are in general different from $`\delta `$ and $`\delta ^{}`$ in Eqs. (Using the value of $`\beta `$ to help determine $`\gamma `$ from $`B`$ decays) and the last term follows since $`V_{cd}/V_{cs}=\stackrel{~}{\lambda }`$. They thus obtain simple results independent of $`\beta `$.

However, terms of $`𝒪(\stackrel{~}{\lambda }^2)`$ and with dependence on both $`\beta `$ and $`\gamma `$ have been omitted from the first equation in (5). Since $`\beta `$ will be known when this analysis can be used there is no purpose in eliminating $`\beta `$. We instead use Eqs. (Using the value of $`\beta `$ to help determine $`\gamma `$ from $`B`$ decays) to determine $`\gamma `$ and the ratio $`rP/T`$ from the quantities $`R_d`$ and $`R_s`$ defined in Ref.  $`R_d`$ is the ratio of the sum of $`B^0`$ and $`\overline{B}^0`$ decays to that of $`B^+`$ and $`B^{}`$ decays. $`R_s`$ is the ratio of the sum of $`B_s`$ and $`\overline{B}_s`$ decays to that of $`B^+`$ and $`B^{}`$ decays. for any value of $`\beta `$. Typical results are shown in Figs. 1 and 2 where we fix the sum of $`R_d`$ and $`R_s`$ and consider the limiting case $`\delta =\delta ^{}=0`$. The results of Ref.  are reproduced in the limit $`\beta =0`$.

It is seen that for values of $`\gamma `$ in the neighborhood of $`50^{}`$ and for $`\beta =30^{}`$ ($`\mathrm{sin}2\beta =0.87`$) the values of $`\gamma `$ is shifted from $`45^{}`$ to $`53^{}`$ from the $`\beta =0`$ approximation. For values of $`\gamma `$ in the neighborhood of $`130^{}`$ and for $`\beta =20^{}`$ the shift is from $`134^{}`$ to $`127^{}`$. We assume $`r<0`$ in accordance with the factorization assumption.

It is instructive to analyze the difference in the two approximations. The effective interaction can be written as

$$_{eff}=V_{tb}^{}V_{tq}\underset{i=3}{\overset{6}{}}Q_i+V_{ub}^{}V_{uq}\underset{i=1}{\overset{2}{}}Q_i^{(u)}+V_{cb}^{}V_{cq}\underset{i=1}{\overset{2}{}}Q_i^{(c)},$$
(10)
where $`q=d`$ or $`s`$ and $`Q_i`$ are the standard operators including the Wilson coefficients. We use the approximation that annihilation diagrams can be neglected so that $`B^+K^0\pi ^+`$ is due to the penguin operators $`Q_3Q_6`$. Thus, as assumed in deriving Eqs. (Using the value of $`\beta `$ to help determine $`\gamma `$ from $`B`$ decays) the terms $`P(P^{})`$ are proportional to $`V_{tb}^{}V_{ts}(V_{tb}^{}V_{td})`$. In Ref.  unitarity is used to set

$$V_{tb}^{}V_{ts}=V_{cb}^{}V_{cs}+V_{ub}^{}V_{us}$$
(11)
and then the term proportional to $`V_{ub}^{}V_{us}`$ is just omitted on the ground that it is smaller by a factor $`\lambda ^2`$. In the limit that we neglect the strong phases we can include this term by replacing Eq. (7) by

$$A(B^+K^0\pi ^+)=\overline{P}\left[1+\stackrel{~}{\lambda }^2\frac{\mathrm{sin}\beta }{\mathrm{sin}(\beta +\gamma )}e^{i\gamma }\right].$$
(12)
Formally our results reduce to theirs in the limit $`\beta =0`$. It is the amplification of this factor $`\stackrel{~}{\lambda }^2`$ that is responsible for the difference.

The equations of Ref.  for $`R_d`$ and $`R_s`$ become equations for $`KR_d`$ and $`KR_s`$, where

$$K=1+2\stackrel{~}{\lambda }^2\frac{\mathrm{sin}\beta \mathrm{cos}\gamma }{\mathrm{sin}(\beta +\gamma )}+\stackrel{~}{\lambda }^4\left(\frac{\mathrm{sin}\beta }{\mathrm{sin}(\beta +\gamma )}\right)^2.$$
(13)
The same factor $`K`$ enters for $`R_d`$ and $`R_s`$ because both are defined as ratios to the $`B^+`$ decay. Then

$`KR_d`$ $`=`$ $`1+r^2+2r\mathrm{cos}\delta \mathrm{cos}\gamma ,`$ (14)
$`KR_s`$ $`=`$ $`\stackrel{~}{\lambda }^2+\left({\displaystyle \frac{r}{\stackrel{~}{\lambda }}}\right)^22r\mathrm{cos}\delta \mathrm{cos}\gamma .`$ (15)
The amplification arises from the fact that $`r\mathrm{cos}\gamma `$ is proportional to $`(KR_d1r^2)`$. Thus, for example, with values of $`R_d=0.8`$ and $`R_s=0.78`$ (corresponding to $`\gamma 50^{}`$) a change of $`K`$ from $`1`$ to $`1.03`$ decreases $`\left|r\mathrm{cos}\gamma \right|`$ by about $`10\%`$. The value of $`r^2`$ is proportional to $`\left[K(R_d+R_s)(1+\stackrel{~}{\lambda }^2)\right]`$. For our example with $`R_d+R_s=1.58`$ a change of $`K`$ from $`1`$ to $`1.03`$ increases $`r`$ by about $`5\%`$. Thus, a change of $`K`$ from $`1`$ to $`1.03`$ can decrease $`\mathrm{cos}\gamma `$ by about $`15\%`$.

Unfortunately, the difficulty of using this method arises from the same sensitivity; small errors on $`R_d`$ and $`R_s`$ can cause a significant error on the determined $`\gamma `$. As an example, let the experimental errors be

$$\frac{\mathrm{\Delta }R_s}{R_s}=2\frac{\mathrm{\Delta }R_d}{R_d}2ϵ.$$
(16)
For the case shown in Fig. 1 with $`\beta =30^{}`$ and $`\gamma =53^{}`$, a value of $`ϵ=6\%`$ corresponds to an uncertainty of about $`24\%`$ in $`\mathrm{cos}\gamma `$, yielding a value $`\gamma =53^{}\pm 10^{}`$. For another case in Fig. 2 with $`\beta =18^{}`$ and $`\gamma =128^{}`$ and assuming instead $`\mathrm{\Delta }R_s/R_s=4\mathrm{\Delta }R_d/R_d4ϵ`$, the same value of $`ϵ`$ would correspond to an error of about $`23\%`$ in $`\mathrm{cos}\gamma `$ and $`\gamma =128^{}\pm 10^{}`$.

The accuracy of this method requires including the strong phase $`\delta `$. In principle this can be determined by measuring the asymmetry between the rates for $`B^0`$ and $`\overline{B}^0`$, which is proportional to $`\mathrm{sin}\gamma \mathrm{sin}\delta `$. To a first approximation, the quantity that is determined in the method discussed here is $`\mathrm{cos}\gamma \mathrm{cos}\delta `$. Assuming $`\delta `$ is small probably only a limit on $`\mathrm{sin}\gamma \mathrm{sin}\delta `$ can be achieved. If $`\mathrm{cos}^2\gamma <1/2`$ and $`\mathrm{sin}\gamma \mathrm{sin}\delta <X`$, then the uncertainty in $`\delta `$ leads to an error of no more than $`0.35X^2`$ in $`\mathrm{cos}\gamma `$. It should be emphasized that this method depends upon the assumption that the sign of $`r`$ is as given by factorization.

The approximation of neglecting contributions from $`Q_1`$ and $`Q_2`$ needs to be considered. The contribution of $`Q_i^{(c)}`$ can be included in $`\overline{P}`$ since in going from Eqs. (7) to (8) all that is required is that $`\overline{P}`$ corresponds to no change in isospin. As a result the only effect is a correction to the term proportional to $`\stackrel{~}{\lambda }^2`$ in Eq. (12). The contributions to $`Q_1`$ and $`Q_2`$ are long-distance effects due to rescattering which mixes processes of different topologies; calculations of these effects are very model dependent . If we call $`P_u(P_c)`$ the amplitudes due to $`Q_1^{(u)}+Q_2^{(u)}(Q_1^{(c)}+Q_2^{(c)})`$ then the $`\stackrel{~}{\lambda }^2`$ terms in Eq. (12) must be multiplied by $`1+(P_uP_c)/\overline{P}`$. Ciuchini et. al. , who call $`P_c`$ the “charming penguin”, suggest that $`P_c/\overline{P}`$ could be of order unity and Falk et. al.  suggest that $`P_u/\overline{P}`$ could be large. However, a recent analysis by Kamal  suggests that $`(P_uP_c)/\overline{P}`$ is probably of order $`0.1`$. As pointed out in these papers, it should be possible in the future to limit the values of $`P_u`$ and $`P_c`$ by detecting decays where they would make a major contribution.

In conclusion we emphasize that in determining $`\gamma `$ from future experiments, optimum use should take into account the value of $`\beta `$ which will be measured via $`\mathrm{sin}2\beta `$ in the near future. In the examples we have discussed of $`B_d`$ ($`B_s`$) decays to $`K\pi `$, the omission of the $`\beta `$ dependence could lead to an error as large as $`8^{}`$ in special cases. In the longer run it would be valuable to determine the phase of the penguin amplitude and the phase $`2\beta `$ of the mixing independently so as to detect new physics contributions. Here we have limited the discussion to the standard CKM model.

This research is supported by the Department of Energy under Grant No. DE-FG02-91ER40682.