text:
# Note on reversibility of quantum jumps11footnote 1Published in Physics Letters A 222, No. 3, pp. 137-140 (1996)

## Abstract

It has been recently proved that a quantum jump may be reversed by a unitary process provided the initial state is restricted by some conditions. The application of such processes for preventing decoherence, for example in quantum computers, was suggested. We shall show that in the situation when the quantum jump is reversible it supplies no information about the initial state additional to the information known beforehand. Therefore the reversibility of this type does not contradict the general statement of quantum measurement theory: a measurement cannot be reversed. As a consequence of this, the coherence of a state (say, in a quantum computer) cannot be restored after it is destroyed by dissipative processes having a character of measurement.

PACS number: 03.65.Bz

The problem of preventing quantum decoherence in real systems became recently important in connection with the question about realizability of quantum computers . Decoherence as a physical phenomenon may be considered in a more general framework of theory of quantum noise . However, decoherence as a physical process arising in the course of a quantum measurement, has interesting specific aspects. Some of them will be discussed here, with important conclusions about possibility to prevent decoherence.

Mabuchi and Zoller has considered recently  a specific type of dissipation processes that may be characterized as a quantum jump i.e. disappearing of a photon, for example its absorption by a detector. The quantum jump may be described by an annihilation operator $`c`$ (from the pair $`c,c^{}`$) as the transition $`|\psi c|\psi `$. It has been proved in  that the quantum jump can be reverted with the help of an unitary evolution provided the system has been before the jump in a state from a certain subspace. As a result, the initial state may be restored coherently, with the same phase relations as before the jump. This process was suggested as a possible mechanism for preventing decoherence, with possible application in theory of quantum computers.

A quantum jump is an example of a dissipative process. Therefore, the result of Mabuchi and Zoller  proves that some of dissipative processes may be reverted. Then the procedure providing the inversion of quantum jumps may serve as a method of preventing dissipation. We shall show however that the dissipation prevented in this way is not accompanied by obtaining new information and therefore cannot be identified with the decoherence arising in the process of a quantum measurement. It seems plausible that this is a general situation: decoherence cannot be inversed if any information is supplied by the process leading to this decoherence. This essentially restricts applicability of the procedure of Mabuchi and Zoller.

Our goal is therefore to show that the inversion of a quantum jump is possible only in the case when the jump supplies no information (additional to the information we had already before the jump), therefore it cannot be considered to be a measurement. The reversible dissipation is not a decoherence arising in the course of a quantum measurement.

1. Let the quantum jump be described by the annihilation operator $`c`$ (from the pair of creation-annihilation operators $`c^{},c`$). As it has been proved in , the quantum jump $`c`$ may be reverted (i.e. the initial state of the system recovered) with the help of a unitary evolution, provided that the initial state belongs to some subspace of the state space $``$.

This means that the action of the operator $`c`$ on an arbitrary state from the specified subspace is identical with the action of some unitary operator $`U`$. Recovering of the initial state is then possible with the help of the evolution described by the operator $`U^{}=U^1`$.

For the goal of the general theoretical analysis of this situation, we shall denote by $`_1`$ the subset of all vectors with this property, so that

$$c|__1=U|__1.$$
(1)
If the quantum jump $`c`$ could give some information about the initial state, then it might be interpreted as a measurement. The contradiction with quantum measurement theory could arise in this case: the effect of the measurement on the system might be completely discharged by a certain unitary evolution. Our task is to show that this is not the case. We shall prove that, as a consequence of Eq. (1), the event of the quantum jump $`c`$ gives no information about the initial state (other than the information following from the fact that the initial state belongs to $`_1`$). Therefore this event cannot be interpreted as a measurement.

For this end, we shall derive some properties of the states belonging to $`_1`$ and prove that the quantum jump gives no information about the initial state besides that this state had these properties.

First of all, it follows directly from Eq. (1) that for an arbitrary vector $`|\psi _1`$ the following equations are satisfied:

$$c|\psi =U|\psi ,\psi |c^{}=\psi |U^{}.$$
(2)
This means (because of unitarity of $`U`$) that the mean photon number for an arbitrary state from the specified subset, $`|\psi _1`$, is equal to unity:

$$\psi |N|\psi =1$$
(3)
where $`N=c^{}c`$ is an operator of the photon number.

Let us expand the state $`|\psi `$ in a series of terms corresponding to definite photon numbers:

$$|\psi =c_0|\psi _0+c_1|\psi _1+c_2|\psi _2+\mathrm{}+c_n|\psi _n+\mathrm{}$$
(4)
where $`|\psi _n`$ is a (normalized) state with $`n`$ photons. Then Eq. (3) reads as follows:

$$p_1+2p_2+3p_3+\mathrm{}+np_n+\mathrm{}=1$$
(5)
with positive numbers $`p_n=|c_n|^2`$. For this equation being fulfilled, at least one of the numbers $`p_1`$, $`p_2`$, …$`p_n`$, …must be non-zero. Therefore, the state $`|\psi _1`$ cannot be vacuum. The expansion (4) must contain at least one non-vacuum component.

The quantum jump $`c`$ diminishes the number of photons by unity. Therefore, the fact that the jump (the click of the detector) occurred, gives the information that the initial state has contained not less than one photon (could not be vacuum). However we know this already from Eq. (5). The event of the jump gives no new information and cannot be considered to be a measurement (provided we know already that the system has been in the subset $`_1`$ before the jump).

Of course, if two quantum jumps occur, this will supply some new information: that the number of photons was not less than 2. This could be a measurement. This however again leads to no contradiction, because the action of the operator $`c^2`$ (describing a double jump) is not equivalent to the action of a unitary operator even in the subset $`_1`$. The double jump is a measurement, and its effect cannot be discharged by a unitary evolution. It is irreversible, in complete correspondence with general principles of quantum theory of measurements.

2. Let us suppose now that not only a single jump, but also a double jump may be unitarily reversed provided the system has been in the subset $`_2`$ before the jumps. This means that two unitary operators $`U_1,U_2`$ exist such that

$$c|__2=U_1|__2,c^2|__2=U_2|__2.$$
(6)
Then the following relations may be readily derived for an arbitrary state from the subset, $`|\psi _2`$:

$$\psi |N|\psi =1,\psi |N(N1)|\psi =1.$$
(7)
Using the expansion (4), we may rewrite the same in the form

$`p_1+2p_2+3p_3+\mathrm{}+np_n+\mathrm{}`$ $`=`$ $`1`$
$`2p_2+6p_3+\mathrm{}+n(n1)p_n+\mathrm{}`$ $`=`$ $`1.`$ (8)
It is seen from Eqs. (8), that there is at least 2 photons in an arbitrary state of the subset $`_2`$ (i.e. such a state cannot be a superposition of the vacuum and the 1-photon state). Therefore, neither a single, nor a double jump give no additional information in the case when the effects of both a single jump and a double jump can be unitarily discharged. the single and double jumps are not in this case measurements.

It is evident that the same consideration is applicable also to the case of a multiple jump with an arbitrary multiplicity.

3. Quantum jump that means for example a click of a detector is considered usually as a sort of measurement in the sense that it supplies a new information. It has been shown above that the quantum jump may give no information if something is known about the initial state. In this case a measurement supplying nontrivial information might take place in the preceding step when the initial state had been prepared. This step should contain projection from the complete space of states $``$ onto some subspace belonging to $`_\mathcal{1}`$ (or $`_\mathcal{2}`$ if the situation with double jumps is considered) . After this preliminary measurement the quantum jump (or double jump) gives no new information. One can formally say that such a jump is a measurement, but it should be clearly understood that this measurement gives no additional information.

This is not at all astonishing and is in fact common in quantum theory of measurement. Indeed, the text-book example of a quantum measurement is the measurement of an observable $`A`$ with a discrete spectrum. If we have a series of repeated measurements of this type (beginning from an unspecified state), then only the first measurement supplies a non-zero information giving the measurement output $`a_i`$. All subsequent measurements of $`A`$ will give with certainty the same result. The situation is quite analogous to the above discussion of quantum jumps if the stage of the preparation of an initial state is taken into account.

4. The above arguments support the general statement about irreversibility of quantum measurements (in the case when the initial state is not specified). This is important in the context of quantum computers and other devices depending on coherent character of their evolution.

One may hope to prevent decoherence resulting from dissipative processes, applying some or another correcting procedures, for example those proposed in . It is shown in  that the initial state may be coherently restored after a certain dissipative processes. However the arguments of the present paper (apparently applicable to a more general situation) demonstrate that the restoration of the coherence is not always possible.

The class of dissipative processes leading to the irreversible decoherence may be specified by the concept of measurement or information. The restoration of the coherence turns out to be impossible if the dissipation is accompanied by obtaining information about the state of a quantum system.222Of course, we do not necessarily mean a measurement arranged on purpose. Instead, it may be an interaction with the environment (reservoir) that results in recording the information in the state of the environment even if nobody is interested in this information. This essentially restricts the circle of situations in which recoherence is in principle feasible. This resulting restriction should be taken into account together with other principal difficulties in creating quantum computers .

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

The author is indebted to I.Bialynicki-Birula and P.Zoller for stimulating discussions and W.Schleich for his kind hospitality in Ulm University during the workshop of the Ulm and Innsbruck quantum-optics groups.


format: text

text:
# Calculating the Fierz Transformation for Higher Orders

## I The problem

Fierz transformation  is a name given to the expression of a certain product of nondiagonal matrix elements of Dirac $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$-matrices as an expansion into products of diagonal matrix elements, such as

$$(\overline{a}\mathrm{\Gamma }_ib)(\overline{b}\mathrm{\Gamma }_ja)=\underset{k,l=1}{\overset{16}{}}c_{kl}(\overline{a}\mathrm{\Gamma }_ka)(\overline{b}\mathrm{\Gamma }_lb).$$
(1)
Here $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_i`$ stands for one of the 16 Dirac matrices $`\{\mathrm{𝟏},\gamma _5,\gamma _\mu ,\gamma _5\gamma _\mu ,\sigma _{\mu \nu }\}`$ constituting a linearly independent basis in the space of complex $`4\times 4`$ matrices. The matrix elements denote products in Dirac-index space only, i. e.,

$$(\overline{a}\mathrm{\Gamma }_ib)=\overline{\psi }_a(𝐫,t)\mathrm{\Gamma }_i\psi _b(𝐫,t).$$
(2)
The Fierz transformation is useful for expressing exchange matrix elements in terms of densities, currents, and other diagonal ones, which greatly eases their use in, for example, relativistic mean-field theories. For this reason it has been studied extensively, see, e. g., the papers by Y. Takahashi  or generalizations to SU(n) .

In the context of nonlinear self-coupling of meson fields, higher-order versions of the Fierz transformation have become of interest (for a review see ). If we express the order as the number of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$-matrices involved, the above Eq. (1) is of second order, and in this paper we will be concerned with constructing expansions in third

$$(\overline{a}\mathrm{\Gamma }_ib)(\overline{b}\mathrm{\Gamma }_jc)(\overline{c}\mathrm{\Gamma }_ka)=\underset{l,m,n=1}{\overset{16}{}}c_{lmn}(\overline{a}\mathrm{\Gamma }_la)(\overline{b}\mathrm{\Gamma }_mb)(\overline{c}\mathrm{\Gamma }_nc)$$
(3)
and fourth order:

$$(\overline{a}\mathrm{\Gamma }_ib)(\overline{b}\mathrm{\Gamma }_jc)(\overline{c}\mathrm{\Gamma }_kd)(\overline{d}\mathrm{\Gamma }_la)=\underset{m,n,p,q=1}{\overset{16}{}}c_{mnpq}(\overline{a}\mathrm{\Gamma }_ma)(\overline{b}\mathrm{\Gamma }_nb)(\overline{c}\mathrm{\Gamma }_pc)(\overline{d}\mathrm{\Gamma }_qd).$$
(4)
Here, a general computer-based solution method will be discussed, using either computer algebra systems such as Mathematica  or conventional programming allowing exact manipulation of fractional complex numbers. Although this approach is quite general, it will be applied preferentially to the case of symmetrized matrix elements with only the matrix $`\mathrm{𝟏}`$ appearing in the expression to be expanded.

## II Symmetrization

In many applications, the wave function indices will all be summed over, so that it is sufficient to deal with an expression symmetrized over the indices. Thus, on the left-hand side of Eq. (1) in the second-order case we can write

$$\underset{ab}{}(\overline{a}\mathrm{\Gamma }_ib)(\overline{b}\mathrm{\Gamma }_ja)=\frac{1}{2}\underset{ab}{}\left[(\overline{a}\mathrm{\Gamma }_ib)(\overline{b}\mathrm{\Gamma }_ja)+(\overline{b}\mathrm{\Gamma }_ia)(\overline{a}\mathrm{\Gamma }_jb)\right],$$
(5)
and the right-hand side of Eq. (1) will be symmetrized exactly in the same way.

Using the notation $`_{\{abc\mathrm{}\}}`$ to refer to the sum over all permutations of the symbols $`a,b,c\mathrm{}`$, we can reformulate the Fierz transformation problem for the symmetrized matrix element as

$$\underset{\{ab\}}{}(\overline{a}\mathrm{\Gamma }_ib)(\overline{b}\mathrm{\Gamma }_ja)=\underset{\{ab\}}{}\underset{kl}{}c_{kl}(\overline{a}\mathrm{\Gamma }_ka)(\overline{b}\mathrm{\Gamma }_lb),$$
(6)
where the factor $`\frac{1}{2}`$ has been dropped on both sides.

It is important to realize that because of the product structure, the right-hand side is symmetric under an exchange of the $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ matrices as well. It is thus useful to introduce a notation for symmetrized terms,

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }_k\mathrm{\Gamma }_l=\underset{\{ab\}}{}(\overline{a}\mathrm{\Gamma }_ka)(\overline{b}\mathrm{\Gamma }_lb)=(\overline{a}\mathrm{\Gamma }_ka)(\overline{b}\mathrm{\Gamma }_lb)+(\overline{a}\mathrm{\Gamma }_la)(\overline{b}\mathrm{\Gamma }_kb),$$
(7)
which can easily be generalized to higher order, for example, in third order the symmetrized problem becomes

$$\underset{\{abc\}}{}(\overline{a}ib)(\overline{b}jc)(\overline{c}ka)=\underset{lmn}{}c_{lmn}\mathrm{\Gamma }_l\mathrm{\Gamma }_m\mathrm{\Gamma }_n$$
(8)
with

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }_l\mathrm{\Gamma }_m\mathrm{\Gamma }_n=\underset{\{abc\}}{}(\overline{a}\mathrm{\Gamma }_la)(\overline{b}\mathrm{\Gamma }_mb)(\overline{c}\mathrm{\Gamma }_nc),$$
(9)
where symmetrization could equivalently be carried out in the indices $`l,m,n`$ instead of $`a,b,c`$. Terms of fourth and higher orders are defined analogously.

## III Algebraic determination of the expansion

The second-order Fierz transformation as defined in Eq. (1) can be viewed as a system of equations obtained by comparing coefficients in the $`4^4=16^2`$ dimensional space spanned by the spinors $`\psi _a`$, $`\psi _b`$, $`\overline{\psi }_a`$, and $`\overline{\psi }_b`$. The coefficients are given by the components of the $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$-matrices and thus can be expressed as complex integers. The unknowns $`c_{kl}`$ are $`16\times 16`$ in number, so that we have exactly the right number of equations, and since the $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$-matrices form a basis for the $`4\times 4`$ complex matrices, the decomposition (1) is always possible.

The solution of this system of linear equations can be carried out using the standard Gauss elimination algorithm, provided that the coefficients are not treated in floating point arithmetic, but as exact complex fractions.

For third-order Fierz transformations the dimension of the system of equations is $`16^3`$ and it is $`16^4`$ for fourth order, that is, the complexity in going from second order to fourth order is in the ratio 1:16:256. For the latter case practical solution would require substantial computing resources, but fortunately in cases of practical interest the number of terms in the expansion can be reduced substantially by symmetry and invariance requirements. In the symmetrized case of the preceeding section, for example, the dimension in fourth order is reduced by the number of permutations 4!.

## IV Selection of the terms in the expansion

The expansion into products of the diagonal matrix elements of the $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$-matrices is always possible, but usually is not the most useful expression of the Fierz transformation. To see this, let us look at an important special case: that of identity matrices on the left-hand side. The decomposition problem thus is

$$(\overline{a}b)(\overline{b}a)=\underset{jk}{}c_{jk}(\overline{a}\mathrm{\Gamma }_ja)(\overline{b}\mathrm{\Gamma }_kb),$$
(10)
or, in symmetrized form,

$$\underset{\{ab\}}{}(\overline{a}b)(\overline{b}a)=\underset{jk}{}c_{jk}\mathrm{\Gamma }_j\mathrm{\Gamma }_k.$$
(11)
Since the left-hand side is a Dirac scalar, this means that the right-hand side also can contain only scalar combinations of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$-matrices. The only scalar combinations built out of products of two $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$-matrices are $`\mathrm{𝟏}\mathrm{𝟏}`$, $`\gamma _5\gamma _5`$, $`\gamma _\mu \gamma ^\mu `$, $`\gamma _5\gamma _\mu \gamma _5\gamma ^\mu `$, and $`\sigma _{\mu \nu }\sigma ^{\mu \nu }`$, assuming the familiar index summation convention. The Fierz transformation problem in this case thus can be restated as (note that here because of the complete symmetry of all terms, the symmetrization can be omitted):

$`(\overline{a}b)(\overline{b}a)`$ $`=`$ $`c_1(\overline{a}a)(\overline{b}b)+c_2(\overline{a}\gamma _5a)(\overline{b}\gamma _5b)+c_3(\overline{a}\gamma _\mu a)(\overline{b}\gamma ^\mu b)`$ (13)
$`+c_4(\overline{a}\gamma _5\gamma _\mu a)(\overline{b}\gamma _5\gamma ^\mu b)+c_5(\overline{a}\sigma _{\mu \nu }a)(\overline{b}\sigma ^{\mu \nu }b).`$
Note that symmetrization works slightly differently in this case: the scalar products sometimes make certain index combinations appear repeatedly in the expansion, but it is still sufficient to include only one ordering of the $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ matrices in the symmetrized terms.

Eq. (13) corresponds to 256 equations for the 5 unknown coefficients. Clearly most equations will be redundant; eliminating them from the statement of the problem, however, turns out to complicate the solution, but the high degree of redundancy provides a welcome check for completeness and consistency of the assumed decomposition.

## V Solution for the fourth-order case

Equation (13) will be used to illustrate the method of solution. Actually two different approaches were used depending on the complexity of the problem.

For second and third order a very simple but flexible approach was implemented in Mathematica. The spinors were expressed as four-component vectors containing symbols of the form

$$\psi _a(a1,a2,a3,a4),\overline{\psi }_a(aa1,aa2,aa3,aa4),\psi _b(b1,b2,b3,b4),\overline{\psi }_b(bb1,bb2,bb3,bb4),$$
(14)
The scalar products with the $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$-matrices can then be evaluated straightforwardly, yielding a representation of Eq. (13) as a linear equation in the coefficients $`c_i`$ with coefficients biquadratic in the spinor components. The symmetrization is done automatically. The coefficients are determined successively by choosing one term in which $`c_1`$ occurs; if this is, e. g., $`c_1aa1a2bb2b4`$, the coefficient of $`aa1a2bb2b4`$ is extracted from the equation, yielding a linear equation in the $`c_i`$ alone, which is solved for $`c_1`$. This is inserted into the equation, reducing the number of unknown coefficients by one, and the process is repeated until all $`c_i`$ have been found. If any terms are then left in the equation, the expansion was not complete.

While this is a very straightforward and not particularly efficient solution, the steps can be automated using built-in functions, and it is quite flexible, since new terms can be added by simply writing them down as symbolic expressions in the spinors and $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$-matrices. For the fourth order, however, this process turned out to be too inefficient, so that as an alternative a Fortran-90 code was developed that uses a data type for fractional complex numbers and straightforward Gauss elimination. Programming the individual terms, though, requires substantially more coding.

Specifically, the four independent components of each spinor are represented by a number $`0,1,2,3`$, corresponding to a two-bit integer. The four spinor indices are then combined into an 8-bit index, which indicates the index of the equation to which this combination contributes. For example, the expression $`(\overline{a}b)(\overline{b}a)`$ has (as only one of the nonvanishing matrix elements) a value of one for the 3-component of spinors $`\overline{\psi }_a`$ and $`\psi _b`$ and the 2-component of spinors $`\overline{\psi }_b`$ and $`\psi _a`$. If we arrange the index with $`\overline{\psi }_a`$, $`\psi _a`$, $`\overline{\psi }_b`$, $`\psi _b`$ in order of decreasing magnitude, the index for the equation will be

$$3\times 4^3+2\times 4^2+2\times 4+3=11101011_2=235.$$
(15)
The program will loop through all spinor component combinations and add the generated coefficients at the corresponding position in the system of equations.

To help with the proper selection of terms in the expansion, the code checks whether any of the coefficients of the term being generated are nonzero, since symmetry may cause cancellation in a non-obvious way, and also whether a term is directly proportional to one previously generated.

The system of equations is then solved using Gauss elimination, where more general linear dependences will become apparent. If the elimination does not solve all of the equations, it is clear that the decomposition is not complete and this is then indicated.

## VI Results

As sample results, we give the decomposition of the symmetrized term in second, third, and fourth order for the case of identity matrices, as tables of terms with the corresponding expansion coefficients. For the higher-order terms, some remarks about new features are made.

### A Second order

The result for second order is

$`(\overline{a}b)(\overline{b}a)`$ $`=`$ $`\frac{1}{4}(\overline{a}a)(\overline{b}b)+\frac{1}{4}(\overline{a}\gamma _5a)(\overline{b}\gamma _5b)+\frac{1}{4}(\overline{a}\gamma _\mu a)(\overline{b}\gamma ^\mu b)`$ (17)
$`\frac{1}{4}(\overline{a}\gamma _5\gamma _\mu a)(\overline{b}\gamma _5\gamma ^\mu b)+\frac{1}{8}(\overline{a}\sigma _{\mu \nu }a)(\overline{b}\sigma ^{\mu \nu }b).`$
This result is repeated in Table I in order to indicate the correct reading of the tables for higher order, where, however, a full symmetrization of both sides of the equation becomes necessary according to Eqs. (8) and (9).

### B Third order

In third order the symmetrization is no longer trivial as it was in the second-order case. It may be surprising that terms with $`\gamma _5\sigma _{\mu \nu }`$ must be included; these can be equivalently formulated using the identity

$$\gamma _5\sigma _{\mu \nu }=\frac{\mathrm{i}}{2}ϵ_{\kappa \lambda \mu \nu }\sigma ^{\kappa \lambda },$$
(18)
but retaining the matrix $`\gamma _5`$ makes the space-reversal properties of the terms more readily apparent. Note that either way our basis still consists of only 16 linearly independent matrices. The resulting transformation is given in Table II.

### C Fourth order

In fourth order the number of possible terms becomes larger and it is difficult to see which are independent. Using the basic building blocks $`\mathrm{𝟏}`$, $`\gamma _5`$, $`\gamma _\mu `$, $`\gamma _5\gamma _\mu `$, $`\sigma _{\mu \nu }`$, and $`\gamma _5\sigma _{\mu \nu }`$ in all possible combinations fulfilling the condition of coupling to a Dirac scalar, which also implies an even number of $`\gamma _5`$-matrices, proves sufficient, but also leads to many dependent terms which are eliminated with the program’s help. The final result is given in Table III.

## VII Other applications

A similar method can be applied to nonsymmetric and nonscalar terms; in this case of course more terms will appear in the expansion. They can be constructed as before from the basic building blocks $`\mathrm{𝟏}`$, $`\gamma _5`$, $`\gamma _\mu `$, $`\gamma _5\gamma _\mu `$, $`\sigma _{\mu \nu }`$, and $`\gamma _5\sigma _{\mu \nu }`$ in a way that yields the desired Lorentz transformation properties.

As an example, the following decomposition was obtained:

$`(\overline{a}\sigma _{\mu \nu }b)(\overline{b}\gamma ^\nu a)`$ $`=`$ (23)
$`\frac{1}{4}(\overline{a}\gamma ^\nu a)(\overline{b}\sigma _{\mu \nu }b)\frac{1}{4}(\overline{a}\sigma _{\mu \nu }a)(\overline{b}\gamma ^\nu b)`$
$`+\frac{3\mathrm{i}}{4}(\overline{a}\gamma _\mu a)(\overline{b}b)\frac{3\mathrm{i}}{4}(\overline{a}a)(\overline{b}\gamma _\mu b)`$
$`+\frac{3\mathrm{i}}{4}(\overline{a}\gamma _5\gamma _\mu a)(\overline{b}\gamma _5b)+\frac{3\mathrm{i}}{4}(\overline{a}\gamma _5a)(\overline{b}\gamma _5\gamma _\mu b)`$
$`\frac{1}{4}(\overline{a}\gamma _5\gamma ^\nu a)(\overline{b}\gamma _5\sigma _{\mu \nu }b)+\frac{1}{4}(\overline{a}\gamma _5\sigma _{\mu \nu }a)(\overline{b}\gamma _5\gamma ^\nu b).`$
Those terms where the exchange of indices $`a`$ and $`b`$ changes the sign will drop out in the symmetrized version of this result, which is

$`\frac{1}{2}\left[(\overline{a}\sigma _{\mu \nu }b)(\overline{b}\gamma ^\nu a)+(\overline{b}\sigma _{\mu \nu }a)(\overline{a}\gamma ^\nu b)\right]`$ $`=`$ $`\frac{1}{4}(\overline{a}\gamma ^\nu a)(\overline{b}\sigma _{\mu \nu }b)\frac{1}{4}(\overline{a}\sigma _{\mu \nu }a)(\overline{b}\gamma ^\nu b)`$ (25)
$`+\frac{3\mathrm{i}}{4}(\overline{a}\gamma _5\gamma _\mu a)(\overline{b}\gamma _5b)+\frac{3\mathrm{i}}{4}(\overline{a}\gamma _5a)(\overline{b}\gamma _5\gamma _\mu b).`$
## VIII Summary

Once it is realized that constructing a Fierz transformation of any order essentially just means solving a linear system of equations with fractional complex coefficients, standard techniques of numerical analysis are sufficient to solve the problem. The calculation is now feasible up to fourth order, and the main work that remains is the expression of the transformation through meaningful couplings of the $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ matrices, which still requires treating each transformation separately. Our work here demonstrates that tractable solutions may be possible for each of these cases.

Commented Mathematica and Fortran-90 programs are available from the authors.

## IX Acknowledgements

This work was supported by the Bundesministerium für Bildung und Forschung, by the Gesellschaft für Schwerionenforschung, and by the U.S. Department of Energy under contract W-7405-ENG-36. The authors are grateful to J. Reinhard and S. Schramm for critical comments.


text:
# Transverse energy fluctuations and the pattern of J/𝜓 suppression in Pb–Pb collisions

## ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

We thank A. Capella and D. Kharzeev for discussions and B. Chaurand for detailed explanations concerning the analysis done by the NA50 Collaboration.


text:
# 1 Introduction

## 1 Introduction

The HERA accelerator is the only existing electron ***In this paper the term ”electron” is used to describe generically electrons or positrons if not specified. – proton collider with the center of mass energy of 300GeV (318GeV since 1998) produced by 27.5GeV electrons and 820GeV (920GeV since 1998) protons . The luminosity has steadily increased and the integrated luminosity of $`e^+p`$ collisions during 1994 – 1997 has reached 36.5pb-1 and 47.7pb-1 for H1 and ZEUS, respectively. One of the most attractive features of the HERA is to provide a unique possibility to search for new phenomena revealing the physics beyond the standard model (SM) through rare topologies in the final states characteristic to electron – proton collisions.

In this paper we investigate a single scalar bottom quark (sbottom) and a scalar charm quark (scharm) production which is feasible at HERA $`ep\stackrel{~}{b}X(\stackrel{~}{c}X)`$. Our theoretical framework is on the basis of the Minimal Supersymmetric (SUSY) Standard Model (MSSM) with $`R`$-parity breaking (RB) interactions .

In 1997 both the H1  and ZEUS  collaborations reported an event excess in comparison with the SM expectations in the deep inelastic scattering (DIS) $`e^+pe^+X`$ at large $`x`$ and high $`Q^2`$. The news very much excited high energy physics comminity. Various possibilities to understand the anomaly have extensively been examined by theoreticians since then . We have also proposed an interpretation of the anomalous event by the scalar top quark (stop) production in the SUSY models with RB interactions . Contrary to initial expectation, the novel features have gradually faded in the whole data sample with increasing experimental data. However, this fact shows that HERA could have the potentiality exploring physics beyond the SM.

Here we are concerned with $`ep\stackrel{~}{b}/\stackrel{~}{c}X`$ in contrast with $`ep\stackrel{~}{t}X`$ in a previous work. The experimental signature of the present process has a large variety corresponding to decay modes of the sbottom/scharm. When decay modes $`\stackrel{~}{b}ec`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{c}eb`$ are dominant, the slight excess will be understood by the present scenario. On the other hand, if the gaugino modes dominate over previous ones, high $`P_T`$ lepton(s) and $`b/c`$-quarks would be typical signatures of our processes. In this respect, we are interested in the high $`P_T`$ leptons observed by the H1 .

Throughout the present work whole calculations of decay widths and cross sections have been performed by using the GRACE-SUSY system, an automatic computation program for SUSY processes . While the GRACE-SUSY system is originally designed to treat such elementary sub-processes as $`e^+e^{}`$, $`eq`$ and $`qq`$ collisions, we have recently succeeded in extending to $`ep`$ and $`pp`$ collisions. We use the extended new versions which includes an interface to the PDFLIB too. For the parton distribution function we have used CTEQ4M .

## 2 Models and constraints

We start from the interaction Lagrangian based on the MSSM with an RB interaction

$$L=\lambda _{1jk}^{}(\stackrel{~}{u_{jL}}\overline{d_k}P_Le\overline{\stackrel{~}{d_{kR}}}\overline{e^c}P_Lu_j)+h.c,$$
(1)
where $`P_{L,R}`$ read left and right handed chiral projection operators, respectively. The interaction Lagrangian (1) has been derived from the general RB superpotential ;

$$W_{/R}=\lambda _{ijk}\widehat{L}_i\widehat{L}_j\widehat{E^c}_k+\lambda _{ijk}^{}\widehat{L}_i\widehat{Q}_j\widehat{D^c}_k+\lambda _{ijk}^{\prime \prime }\widehat{U^c}_i\widehat{D^c}_j\widehat{D^c}_k,$$
(2)
where $`i`$, $`j`$ and $`k`$ are generation indices. The first two terms violate the lepton number $`L`$ and the last term violates the baryon number $`B`$. Incorporating RB interactions into the MSSM we have a possibility to unveil yet unresolved problems as (i) the cosmic baryon number violation, (ii) the origin of the masses and the magnetic moments of neutrinos and (iii) some interesting rare processes induced by the $`L`$ and/or $`B`$ violation. The realization of the coupling among participating particles in Eq. (1) will be most suitable for the $`ep`$ collider HERA because the squark $`\stackrel{~}{u_{jL}}`$ or $`\overline{\stackrel{~}{d_{kR}}}`$ will be produced in the $`s`$-channel in $`e^+`$-$`q`$ sub-processes.

$`e^++d_k\stackrel{~}{u_{jL}}`$ (3)
$`e^++\overline{u_j}\overline{\stackrel{~}{d_{kR}}}.`$ (4)
The upper bounds on the coupling constants $`\lambda _{1jk}^{}`$ have already been settled by, for instance, neutrinoless double beta decay , charged current universality , atomic parity violation (APV)  and $`\nu _e`$ mass . Some of possible nine coupling constants $`\lambda _{1jk}^{}`$ are severely constrained by experiments mentioned above.

Here we pay attention to the single sbottom and scharm production,

$`e^++\overline{c}\overline{\stackrel{~}{b_R}}`$ (5)
$`e^++b\stackrel{~}{c_L},`$ (6)
which are realized via a non-zero $`R`$-parity breaking coupling $`\lambda _{123}^{}`$. The most stringent upper bound on $`\lambda _{123}^{}`$ comes from the charged current universality experiments ,

$$\lambda _{123}^{}\stackrel{<}{}0.1$$
(7)
for $`m_{\stackrel{~}{b}_R}200`$GeV.

Sbottoms ($`\stackrel{~}{b_L}`$, $`\stackrel{~}{b_R}`$) as well as stops are naturally mixed each other due to a large Yukawa coupling to their partner quark. The left- and right-handed sbottom ($`\stackrel{~}{b_L}`$, $`\stackrel{~}{b_R}`$) are expressed in terms of the mass eigenstates ($`\stackrel{~}{b}_1`$, $`\stackrel{~}{b}_2`$) through a mixing angle $`\theta _b`$.

$`\stackrel{~}{b_L}`$ $`=`$ $`\stackrel{~}{b}_1\mathrm{cos}\theta _b\stackrel{~}{b}_2\mathrm{sin}\theta _b`$ (8)
$`\stackrel{~}{b_R}`$ $`=`$ $`\stackrel{~}{b}_1\mathrm{sin}\theta _b+\stackrel{~}{b}_2\mathrm{cos}\theta _b.`$ (9)
We should note that the sbottom mixing is considered to be natural in the case of large $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$, because the off-diagonal terms of the sbottom mass matrix are proportional to $`m_b(A_b+\mu \mathrm{tan}\beta )`$, where $`A_b`$ and $`\mu `$, respectively, denote the trilinear coupling and the SUSY Higgs mass. Then the interaction Lagrangian (1) can easily be rewritten in terms of the mass eigenstates ($`\stackrel{~}{b_1}`$, $`\stackrel{~}{b_2}`$). In particular, it is worthy to note that both sbottoms $`\stackrel{~}{b}_1`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{b}_2`$ could be produced in the $`eq`$ collisions through

$$L_{\stackrel{~}{b}ec}=\lambda _{123}^{}(\mathrm{sin}\theta _b\overline{\stackrel{~}{b_1}}\overline{e^c}P_Lc+\mathrm{cos}\theta _b\overline{\stackrel{~}{b_2}}\overline{e^c}P_Lc)+h.c..$$
(10)
We would emphasize that only one species of scharm $`\stackrel{~}{c_L}`$ can couple to $`e^+b`$ in our scenario with $`\lambda _{123}^{}`$ $``$ 0.

Interestingly, there exists a theoretical upper bound on the mass of the lighter sbottom $`\stackrel{~}{b}_1`$. In the MSSM, since the left handed stop $`\stackrel{~}{t}_L`$ and sbottom $`\stackrel{~}{b}_L`$ form an $`SU(2)`$ doublet, their masses include the same contribution from a soft scalar breaking mass $`\stackrel{~}{m}_{Q_3}`$. We obtain an upper bound on the sbottom mass $`m_{\stackrel{~}{b}_1}^2`$ as

$$m_{\stackrel{~}{b}_1}^2m_{\stackrel{~}{t}_2}^2m_t^2+m_b^2m_W^2\mathrm{cos}2\beta .$$
(11)
The lighter sbottom $`\stackrel{~}{b}_1`$ cannot be heavy for relatively light $`\stackrel{~}{t}_2`$. As we consider the single sbottom and scharm production, we should take into account consistent model parameter sets allowing $`m_{\stackrel{~}{b}},m_{\stackrel{~}{c}}`$ $``$ 200GeV. For example, in order to obtain $`m_{\stackrel{~}{b}_1}`$ $`\stackrel{>}{}`$ 200GeV, the heavier stop must be rather heavy $`m_{\stackrel{~}{t}_2}`$ $`\stackrel{>}{}`$ 250GeV. This means that the lighter stop must be lighter than about 250GeV.

Next we examine the decay modes of the sbottom and scharm. We assume that the sbottom can decay through $`\stackrel{~}{b}_{1,2}`$ $``$ $`ec`$, $`b\stackrel{~}{\chi }_i^0`$ and $`W\stackrel{~}{t}_1`$, where $`\stackrel{~}{\chi }_i^0`$ denotes neutralinos ($`i=14`$). On the other hand, the scharm can decay into $`\stackrel{~}{c}_L`$ $``$ $`eb`$, $`c\stackrel{~}{\chi }_i^0`$ and $`s\stackrel{~}{\chi }_{1,2}^+`$. The first decay mode for both sbottom and scharm occurs via the $`R`$-parity breaking mode and the others proceed through $`R`$-parity conserving interactions.

At present, we know that the most stringent mass bound on the sbottom with the dominant decay mode $`\stackrel{~}{b}_1ec`$ is $`m_{\stackrel{~}{b}_1}>242(204)`$GeV for Br($`\stackrel{~}{b}_1ec`$)=1 (0.5). This has been obtained by the combined experimental results of the leptoquark searches by the CDF and D0 experiments at Tevatron . It should be noted that the mass bound could become lower when the branching ratio of the $`R`$-parity breaking mode $`\stackrel{~}{b}_1`$ $``$ $`ec`$ is smaller.

We are aware of constraints from the precision measurements at LEP1. Potentially, contributions to the $`\mathrm{\Delta }\rho `$ from the $`\stackrel{~}{t}_L`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{b}_L`$ becomes large if their masses are not so different from the weak mass scale of $`m_Z`$. We have checked contributions to the $`\mathrm{\Delta }\rho `$ from the $`\stackrel{~}{t}_i`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{b}_j`$  could become small to such extent as $`7\times 10^4`$ for $`m_{\stackrel{~}{b}_1}=200`$GeV, $`m_{\stackrel{~}{t}_1}=100`$GeV and $`m_{\stackrel{~}{t}_2}=250`$GeV.

## 3 Numrical results

In Table I we show two typical input parameter sets adopted throughout our numerical calculations. Output mass paramters of the neutralinos and the lighter chargino are also presented for reference.

Table I Typical input parameter sets

| masses in GeV | A | B |
| --- | --- | --- |
| $`M_2`$ | $`300`$ | $`150`$ |
| $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$ | $`12`$ | $`2`$ |
| $`\mu `$ | $`300`$ | $`300`$ |
| $`m_{\stackrel{~}{c_L}}`$ | $`235`$ | $`230`$ |
| $`m_{\stackrel{~}{t_1}}`$ | $`250`$ | $`90`$ |
| $`m_{\stackrel{~}{t_2}}`$ | $`400`$ | $`300`$ |
| $`\theta _t`$ | $`0.42`$ | $`1.0`$ |
| $`\theta _b`$ | $`1.2`$ | $`1.0`$ |
| $`m_{\stackrel{~}{\chi _1}^0}`$ | $`143.4`$ | $`76.2`$ |
| $`m_{\stackrel{~}{\chi _2}^0}`$ | $`254.4`$ | $`158.3`$ |
| $`m_{\stackrel{~}{\chi _1}^+}`$ | $`254.4`$ | $`158.4`$ |

For these parameter sets, we first calculate the decay branchig ratios of sbottoms and the left-handed scharm (see Table II), where we take $`\lambda _{123}^{}=0.2[0.1]`$ and $`m_{\stackrel{~}{b_1}}=225[200]`$GeV for the set(A) \[(B)\].

Table II Branching ratios

|  | A | B |
| --- | --- | --- |
| $`\stackrel{~}{b}_1ec`$ | $`0.688`$ | $`0.084`$ |
| $`\stackrel{~}{b}_1b\stackrel{~}{\chi }_{}^{0}{}_{1}{}^{}`$ | $`0.312`$ | $`0.334`$ |
| $`\stackrel{~}{b}_1b\stackrel{~}{\chi }_{}^{0}{}_{2}{}^{}`$ | $`0.0`$ | $`0.181`$ |
| $`\stackrel{~}{b}_1W\stackrel{~}{t}_1`$ | $`0.0`$ | $`0.401`$ |
| $`\stackrel{~}{b}_1`$ total width | 0.090GeV | 0.164GeV |
| $`\stackrel{~}{b}_2ec`$ | $`0.693`$ | $`0.075`$ |
| $`\stackrel{~}{b}_2b\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^0`$ | $`0.307`$ | $`0.095`$ |
| $`\stackrel{~}{b}_2b\stackrel{~}{\chi }_2^0`$ | $`0.0`$ | $`0.278`$ |
| $`\stackrel{~}{b}_2W\stackrel{~}{t}_1`$ | $`0.0`$ | $`0.551`$ |
| $`\stackrel{~}{b}_2`$ total width | 0.179GeV | 0.352GeV |
| $`\stackrel{~}{c}_Leb`$ | $`0.959`$ | $`0.006`$ |
| $`\stackrel{~}{c}_Lc\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^0`$ | $`0.041`$ | $`0.069`$ |
| $`\stackrel{~}{c}_Lc\stackrel{~}{\chi }_2^0`$ | $`0.0`$ | $`0.291`$ |
| $`\stackrel{~}{c}_Ls\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^+`$ | $`0.0`$ | $`0.634`$ |
| $`\stackrel{~}{c}_L`$ total width | 0.191GeV | $`0.697`$ |

From Tables I and II, we find that the set(A) is characterized by the dominant decay modes $`\stackrel{~}{b}_{1,2}ec`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{c}_Leb`$. On the other hand, the SUSY decay modes $`\stackrel{~}{b}_{1,2}b\stackrel{~}{\chi }_{}^{0}{}_{i}{}^{}`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{b}_1W\stackrel{~}{t}_1`$ are dominated in the set(B). These properties are originated from the different values of the SU(2) gaugino SUSY breaking mass $`M_2`$ and the lighter stop mass $`m_{\stackrel{~}{t_1}}`$. Large $`M_2`$ in the set(A) corresponds to heavy neutralinos $`\stackrel{~}{\chi _i}^0`$. The $`R`$-pariry conserving decay modes of the sbottoms/scharm are kinematically forbidden in this case.

In Fig.1 we show the $`\lambda _{123}^{}`$ dependence of the total cross section for the process,

$$e^+pe^+qX,$$
(12)
where we take the set(A) and $`m_{\stackrel{~}{b_1}}=225`$GeV is assumed. To extract the relevant signal we adopt kinematical cuts $`Q^2>10^4`$GeV2 and $`M_{eq}>200`$GeV. In our calculation two kinds of cuts on $`\theta ^{}`$, the angle between the outgoing and incoming positron in the $`eq`$ rest frame, are introduced. As clearly seen from Fig.1, the cross section is more sensitive to the $`\lambda _{123}^{}`$ for the more restrictive cut $`\mathrm{cos}\theta ^{}<0`$. In another words, more restrictive cut on $`\mathrm{cos}\theta ^{}`$ would be efficient to extract the signal from background.

In Fig.2 we show the differential cross section against $`M_{eq}`$ for the set(A), $`\lambda _{123}^{}=0.2`$, $`m_{\stackrel{~}{b_1}}=225`$GeV, $`Q^2>10^4`$GeV2 and $`\mathrm{cos}\theta ^{}<0.5`$. It will be seen from Fig.2(a) that only the sbottom/scharm production contributes to the relevant signal. As the masses of two sbottoms and left-handed scharm are in the set(A) almost degenerate, three peaks corresponding to their masses appear in the range of $`M_{eq}=`$ 220 $``$ 240GeV. Summing up all sub-process contributions we obtain the observable differential cross section represented by Fig.2(b). We can clearly see a slight excess of the cross section in the range of $`M_{eq}=`$ 220 $``$ 240GeV. Apparent peak structures, however, cannot be identified.

The mass $`m_{\stackrel{~}{b_1}}`$ dependence of the total production cross sections of the sbottom with different final states is shown in Fig.3, where the set(B) and $`\lambda _{123}^{}=0.1`$ have been adopted. We should note that Br($`\stackrel{~}{b}_1ec`$) $`\stackrel{<}{}`$ 0.1 and even the light sbottom $`m_{\stackrel{~}{b_1}}\stackrel{>}{}100`$GeV is not excluded from the leptoquark searches at Tevatron. Then signatures relevant to the sbottom production have a large variety of characteristic features. Relatively light sbottom $`m_{\stackrel{~}{b_1}}\stackrel{>}{}150`$GeV dominantly decays into $`b\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^0`$ and the heavier sbottom also decays into $`W\stackrel{~}{t}_1`$ and $`b\stackrel{~}{\chi }_2^0`$. As the lightest neutralino $`\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^0`$ can decay into the ordinary particles $`e^\pm cb`$ or $`bs\nu _e`$, the decay chains leading to relevant signatures are written as follows,

$`\stackrel{~}{b_1}X`$ $``$ $`b\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^0Xb(e^\pm cb)X,b(bs\nu _e)X`$ (13)
$``$ $`b\stackrel{~}{\chi }_2^0Xb(\mathrm{}^+\mathrm{}^{}\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^0)Xb(\mathrm{}^+\mathrm{}^{}(e^\pm cb))X,b(\mathrm{}^+\mathrm{}^{}(bs\nu _e))X`$ (14)
$``$ $`b\stackrel{~}{\chi }_2^0Xb(b\overline{b}\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^0)Xb(b\overline{b}(e^\pm cb))X,b(b\overline{b}(bs\nu _e))X`$ (15)
$``$ $`W\stackrel{~}{t}_1X(\mathrm{}\nu _{\mathrm{}})(c\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^0)X(\mathrm{}\nu _{\mathrm{}})(c(e^\pm cb))X,(\mathrm{}\nu _{\mathrm{}})(c(bs\nu _e))X.`$ (16)
High $`P_T`$ charged lepton(s) and/or $`b/c`$-jet(s) are typical signatures of these processes. Especially, multi-charged leptons and $`b/c`$-jets are almost the SM background free signals and they could effectively serve us in the sbottom search.

In Fig.4 we show the differential cross sections for transverse momentum of the final muon $`P_T(\mu )`$ and the $`c`$-quark $`P_T(q)`$ for the process (16) as an example. Here we take the set(B), $`m_{\stackrel{~}{b_1}}=200`$GeV and $`\lambda _{123}^{}=0.1`$. When we use the inclusive cross section of the muon to extract the signal, the single $`W`$ production, $`epe_{esc}WqXe_{esc}(\mu \nu _\mu )qX`$, is severe background, where $`e_{esc}`$ means the final electron escaped into the beam pipe. As seen from Fig.4, the background cross section is much larger than the signal. However, if we can tag the $`c`$-quark, the background should be restricted to $`epe_{esc}WcXe_{esc}(\mu \nu _\mu )cX`$ and its cross section is comparable to the signal. In fact we can expect the event excess in both $`P_T(\mu )`$ and $`P_T(c)`$ distributions. In addition to the muon and the $`c`$-quark, the information of the $`b`$-quark and/or the high $`P_T`$ electrons (positrons) coming from the neutralino $`\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^0`$ decays is available for us. All these informations make easier to extract the signals which we are searching for.

## 4 Concluding remarks

We have investigated a possible scenario to understand an excess of large $`x`$ and high $`Q^2`$ events in the $`e^+pe^+X`$ observed by the H1 and ZEUS experiments at HERA. Our reasoning is based upon the resonance production of the sbottoms and the scharm with an $`R`$-parity breaking interaction in the framework of the MSSM. We have focussed our attention upon its broad mass $`M_{eq}`$ distribution characteristic of the HERA events in addition to large $`x`$ and high $`Q^2`$. Assuming almost degenerate three mass eigenstates $`\stackrel{~}{b_1}`$, $`\stackrel{~}{b_2}`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{c_L}`$, we have simulated the mass distribution on the basis of our specific scenario. In the case of large $`M_2`$ and $`m_{\stackrel{~}{t_1}}`$ the present scenario has its validity. If this is not the case, the sbottom decay dominantly into lighter sparticles. Then signals are characterized by high $`P_T`$ charged lepton(s) and/or $`b/c`$-jet(s). Now planning vertex detectors at the H1 and ZEUS provide us the efficient $`b/c`$ tagging. Together with a luminosity upgrade bringing integrated luminosities, for instance, to the level of 1fb-1, it is expected that an event excess will be confirmed and our MSSM approach opens a new horizon.

Acknowledgements

This work was supported in part by the Grant-in-Aid for Scientific Research from the Ministry of Education, Science and Culture of Japan, No. 10440080.


text:
# OXYGEN ABUNDANCE DETERMINATION IN VERY METAL-POOR GIANTS: PERMITTED O I LINES VERSUS FORBIDDEN [O I] LINES

## 1 INTRODUCTION

The hot controversy on the trend of the oxygen abundance in very old metal-deficient stars is one of the most interesting topics in the field of stellar spectroscopy as well as Galactic chemical evolution. (See, e.g., Carretta, Gratton, & Sneden 2000 and references therein for overviewing the current status of this problem.)

The essential point of the argument is, shortly speaking, how the \[O/Fe\] ratio behaves itself toward the regime of very low metallicity, say, down to \[Fe/H\]$`3`$. Admittedly, it seems to have been almost established that \[O/Fe\] increases from $`0.0`$ (\[Fe/H\]$`0`$) to $`0.4`$ (\[Fe/H\]$`1`$) for stars of disk population. However, when stars of old halo population are concerned, we are wondering whether \[O/Fe\] shows a nearly flat plateau at \[O/Fe\] $`+0.5`$ (“plateau” trend) or it continues to increase steadily up to \[O/Fe\] $`+1`$ (“steady increase” trend), as \[Fe/H\] decreases from $`1`$ down to $`3`$.

From observational point of view, this problem is closely connected with the technical details of abundance determination; i,e., especially important is which of the spectral lines to be adopted. In the present case of late-type stars, the candidates of the lines used for O-abundance determination are roughly divided into three groups :
(1) O i permitted lines (e.g., 7771–5 triplet)
(2) \[O i\] forbidden lines (6300/6363 doublet)
(3) OH lines in the UV region of 3100–3200 $`\mathrm{\AA }`$
Among these the \[O i\] forbidden lines (originating from the ground level) have so far been regarded as being the most reliable abundance indicator because of its low $`T_{\mathrm{eff}}`$ sensitivity along with the certain validity of the LTE assumption, in contrast to the high-excitation permitted lines which are $`T_{\mathrm{eff}}`$-sensitive and more or less affected by a non-LTE effect.

Generally speaking, there seems to have been an implicit consensus that the “plateau” trend probably represents the truth, partly because it is suggested from the analysis of \[O i\] 6300 forbidden line, though with a rather large scatter (see, e.g., Fig. 11 in Timmes, Woosley, & Weaver 1995). In addition, the fact that this “flat” behavior is consistent with the trend posed by other $`\alpha `$-elements (Mg, Si, Ca, Ti) may have substantiated this view. Namely, it is reasonably explainable based on the standard theory of Galactic chemical evolution. That is, a steady enrichment of $`\alpha `$-elements along with Fe with a constant $`\alpha `$-to-Fe ratio by massive stars via type II SNe (very short time-scale nearly like instantaneous recycling) in the earlier phase of Galactic evolution, and then later type Ia SNe (long time-scale of the order of $`10^9`$ yr) begins to explode to eject Fe, which must have gradually suppressed \[$`\alpha `$/Fe\] eventually down to the current value.

On the other side, the O i 7771–5 lines were known to imply the “steady increase” trend (see, e.g., Fig. 1 in Bessell, Sutherland, & Ruan 1991, or Fig. 4 in Mishenina et al. 2000), which means that these permitted lines yield higher abundance than that resulted from the forbidden line. Nevertheless, it appears that this tendency has not been taken too seriously compared to the \[O i\] results for the uneasy problems involved with these lines mentioned above.

Recently, however, Israelian, García López, & Rebolo (1998) and Boesgaard et al. (1999) reported that \[O/Fe\] clearly increases from $``$+0.6 to $``$+1.0 as \[Fe/H\] varies from $``$ $`1.5`$ to $`3`$ (just similar to what had been implied by 7771–5 permitted lines) based on their new independent analyses of numerous OH lines in UV, which have sufficient strengths even in extremely metal-poor stars and thus suitable for abundance determination. This “steady increase” trend has thus acquired a special attention as the true \[O/Fe\] vs. \[Fe/H\] relation, though this must be quite embarrassing for theoreticians (i.e., theoretical interpretation becomes much harder).

Even so, the problem is still far from being settled, unfortunately. A strong criticism was successively addressed by Fulbright & Kraft (1999), who reinvestigated the atmospheric parameters of two extremely metal-poor stars sudied by Israelian et al. (1998) and showed that their large \[O/Fe\] values ($`+1`$) can be considerably reduced down to $`+0.5`$ if the \[O i\] 6300 line was used, concluding that it is still premature to accept their OH results.

So we are in a quite confusing situation. Which line gives the correct oxygen abundance? \[O i\] forbidden line? O i permitted lines (which yield the same trend as that given by OH lines)? This topic attracted our attention, since we once confirmed that the oxygen abundances derived from O i 7771–5 lines and \[O i\] 6300 line do not show any systematic discordance from the analysis of Population I G–K giants (Takeda, Kawanomoto, & Sadakane 1998a).

Consequently, we decided to conduct a detailed analysis of selected seven very metal-deficient stars ($`3`$ $``$ \[Fe/H\] $``$ $`1.5`$) based on the high-quality spectra observed with Keck HIRES, in an attempt to compare the abundances of oxygen derived from the permitted O i lines (7771–5, 8446) and forbidden \[O i\] lines (6363, 6300) with each other, as well as to settle which of the \[O/Fe\] trend is more likely. We will show later that the former “permitted” O i lines are probably a more reliable abundance indicator rather than the forbidden \[O i\] lines, lending support for the “steadily increasing” trend of \[O/Fe\].

## 2 OBSERVATIONAL DATA

### 2.1 Observations

The spectroscopic observations were carried out for six HD-numbered very metal-deficient stars (five G–K giants and one turn-off star in the metallicity range of $`3`$ $``$ \[Fe/H\] $``$ $`1.5`$) in the seasons of 1997 May and 1999 November using the High Resolution Echelle Spectrograph (HIRES; Vogt 1994) of the Keck I Telescope. Basic observational data of the program stars are given in Table 1.

### 2.2 Data Reduction

The data were reduced with the HIRES Automated Reduction (HAR) software package developed by T. A. Barlow. This package converts the two-dimensional echelle raw data to one-dimensional wavelength-calibrated spectrum of each order with full processings of bias subtraction, flat fielding, cosmic-ray correction, sky subtraction, and dispersion correction. The multiple calibrated spectra were coadded using the IRAF package scombine and then normalized to continuum level of unity using the IRAF package continuum for 1997 May data and the HAR package xplot for 1999 November data.

The wavelength range of the spectrum is 6330 $`\mathrm{\AA }`$ $``$ $`\lambda `$ $``$ 8760 $`\mathrm{\AA }`$, which comprises the lines of \[O i\] 6363, O i 7771–5, and O i 8446. Since we tried to cover the long-wavelength range up to 8760 $`\mathrm{\AA }`$ (because of our intention of observing special spectral lines such as those of sulfur), we were obliged to set the short-wavelength limit at 6330 $`\mathrm{\AA }`$. Consequently, we had to abandon using the \[O i\] 6300 line.

### 2.3 CS 22892-052

Regarding CS 22892-052, the well-known carbon-rich very metal-poor star with excesses of neutron-capture elements (cf. Sneden et al. 1994), we used the Keck HIRES spectrum which was kindly reduced and provided by M. Kuchner (private communication) covering the wavelength range of 5340$`\mathrm{\AA }`$ $``$ $`\lambda `$ $``$ 7770 $`\mathrm{\AA }`$. Unfortunately, the signal-to-noise ratio of this spectrum is considerably poor (120–140) compared to those of other six stars. Since the long-wavelength limit is just on the position of O i 7771–5 triplet, only the shortest-wavelength component (at 7771.94 $`\mathrm{\AA }`$) of the three could be used. Note also that the \[O i\] 6300 line was usable in addition to \[O i\] 6363, while the O i 8446 line is not included in this spectrum.

### 2.4 Equivalent-Width Measurements

The identification of spectral lines, the selection of blend-free lines usable for abundance determination, and the evaluation of equivalent widths by Gassian fitting (or by direct integration if necessary) were carried out with the help of the interactive GUI software “SPSHOW”, which was developed by Y. Takeda based on Kurucz’s ATLAS/WIDTH code as a multi-purpose tool for stellar spectrum analysis (e.g., synthesizing a theoretical spectrum with any abundance/line-broadening, browsing of observed spectrum to be overplotted, radial-velocity correction by fitting with an appropriate horizontal shift, interactive abundance-determination, equivalent-width measurement, etc.) We measured the equivalent width for all spectral lines as possible (irrespective of the species) as far as being confidently identified and free from blending with other lines. These data were further used for abundance determination as described in §3.2.

## 3 ABUNDANCE DETERMINATION

### 3.1 Model Atmospheres

We used Kurucz’s (1993) ATLAS9 line-blanketed model atmospheres, based on which the atmospheric models of individual stars were constructed by interpolation in terms of $`T_{\mathrm{eff}}`$, $`\mathrm{log}g`$, and \[X\] (metallicity).

Regarding the choice of these parameters, we adopted the values established by Pilachowski, Sneden, & Kraft (1996) if available (HD 44007, HD 165195, HD 175305, HD 184266), since their determinations appear to be reliable, because they were based on careful considerations and checked from various standpoints.

As for HD 84937 and HD 88609, the $`T_{\mathrm{eff}}`$ values were evaluated from $`(by)_0`$ color (0.30 and 0.65), which were taken from the compilation of Hauck and Mermilliod (1998) and corrected for reddening as described below, in the same way as was done by Pilachowski et al. (1996), yielding 6040K and 4440K, respectively. We applied a slight reddening correction ($`0.03`$) corresponding to the $`\mathrm{E}_{BV}`$ value of +0.04 (cf. Bond 1980; $`\mathrm{E}_{by}`$ = 0.73$`\mathrm{E}_{BV}`$) for HD 88609 to obtain $`(by)_0`$ from the raw $`by`$, while $`\mathrm{E}_{by}`$ = 0 could be safely assumed for the nearby (81 pc) turn-off star HD 84937. We then computed the $`\mathrm{log}g`$ values from $`L`$ (bolometric luminosity), which were derived from Hipparcos data with the bolometric correction estimated from Kurucz’s (1993) theoretical colors, while using the adopted $`T_{\mathrm{eff}}`$ and assuming 0.8 $`M_{\mathrm{}}`$ (Pilachowski et al. 1996), and eventually obtained 4.0 and 0.8, respectively. Comparing such calculated $`T_{\mathrm{eff}}`$ and $`\mathrm{log}g`$ with the published values compiled by Cayrel de Strobel et al. (1997), which we also consulted for estimating the stellar metallicity, we finally adopted (6100K, 4.0, $`2.3`$) and (4500K, 1.0, $`2.7`$) for ($`T_{\mathrm{eff}}`$, $`\mathrm{log}g`$, \[X\]) of HD 84937 and HD 88609, respectively.

Concerning CS 22892-052, we simply used the parameters determined by McWilliam et al. (1995). The finally adopted model parameters for our program stars are given in Table 2.

### 3.2 Microturbulence and Elemental Abundances

We used the WIDTH9 program written by R. L. Kurucz to determine the elemental abundances, where the $`gf`$ values compiled by Kurucz (1995) were exclusively used.

Practically, the values of the microturbulence were first established from the equivalent widths of Fe i lines, following the procedure adopted by Takeda (1992), and are given in Table 2. We then determined the abundances of various elements (apart from C and O which were treated specially) from the measured equivalent-widths of spectral lines, with the corresponding atmospheric model and the microturbulent velocity.

The resulting abundances averaged over each of the lines are presented in Table 2. In case where lines of two ionization stages were available, we took their simple mean.

Although the detailed data and results for each line (e.g., the equivalent width, the $`gf`$ value, and the abundance, etc. ) are not shown in this paper, complete tables in a machine-readable form containing all these data are downloadable from the following anonymous ftp site.

```
IP address: 133.11.160.7
directory:  /Users/takeda/oxygen2000/tables/

```

We confirmed almost satisfactory accomplishment of the ionization equilibrium between Fe i and Fe ii, since the abundance difference (Fe i $``$ Fe ii) turned out to be +0.08, $`0.09`$, $`0.14`$, $`0.07`$, +0.17, +0.05, and +0.06 (in the same order as in Table 2). Note also that the resulting \[Fe/H\] values are consistent with the adopted metallicity of the model.

### 3.3 Oxygen Line Analysis

#### 3.3.1 Non-LTE Calculation

The statistical-equilibrium calculations for oxygen were carried out twice for each star by assuming two input oxygen abundances \[O/Fe\] = 0 and 1. See Takeda et al. (1998a) and the references therein for computational details. The resulting departure coefficients and line-source functions were further used to determine the non-LTE oxygen abundance.

#### 3.3.2 CO Molecule Effect

As described in the following, we determine the oxygen abundance from the equivalent widths of oxygen lines or by profile-fitting. Here, there is one thing we should be aware in the present case of late-type stars. Since an appreciable fraction of C and O atoms are combined to form CO molecules, the determination of the abundance of oxygen more or less depends upon that of C along with the O-abundance itself (i.e., the abundance adopted in the model atmosphere). In order to take this effect properly into consideration, we determined the abundance of C for our program stars from \[C i\] 8727.13 (HD 44007, 88609, 165195) or C i 8335.15 (HD 84937, 175305, 184266), except for CS 22892-052.

Practically, we first determined the O-abundance by assuming \[C/Fe\] = 0 (\[C/Fe\] = +1 only for CS 22892-052; cf. McWilliam et al. 1995). With such determined abundance of oxygen, the abundance of C was evaluated from the equivalent width of the \[C i\] or C i line. Finally, the oxygen abundance was again computed with this updated C-abundance.

Actually, this whole procedure was repeated twice in order to derive two oxygen abundances $`\mathrm{log}ϵ_0`$(O) and $`\mathrm{log}ϵ_1`$(O), corresponding to two different input oxygen abundances of the model atmosphere, \[O/Fe\] = 0 and +1. Then, the final oxygen abundance to be adopted was derived by finding the consistent solution based on these two.

Nevertheless, both C-dependence and the (input) \[O/Fe\]-dependence were found to be generally insignificant and negligible in most cases (a few hundredths dex at most). The resulting carbon abundances are given in Table 2.

#### 3.3.3 O I 7771–5

The abundances from these well-known high-excitation O i triplet lines (RMT No.1; $`\chi `$ = 9.15 eV) in the quintet system ($`3s^5S^o`$$`3p^5P`$) were derived from their equivalent widths. The $`gf`$ values (and the damping parameters) were taken from Kurucz (1995); i.e., +0.32, +0.17, and $`0.05`$ for the lines at 7771.94, 7774.17, and 7775.39 $`\mathrm{\AA }`$, respectively. The results are given in Table 3, where the mean of the non-LTE abundances over the components, $`<\mathrm{log}ϵ_{7773}>`$, is also presented. (We will regard this $`<\mathrm{log}ϵ_{7773}>`$ as being the standard oxygen abundance to be adopted.) The theoretical spectrum computed with this $`<\mathrm{log}ϵ_{7773}>`$ are compared with the observed one for each star in Figure 1, where we can confirm that the fit is quite satisfactory.

In the case of HD 184266, we found that consistency of the abundances for these three components could not be attained with the use of $`\xi `$ = 2.2 $`\mathrm{km}\mathrm{s}^1`$, which was derived from Fe i lines (§3.2). We thus adopted the value of 5.1 $`\mathrm{km}\mathrm{s}^1`$(the best-fit value established by profile-fitting; cf. §6.1 of Takeda & Sadakane 1997) for this star. This problem will be discussed further in §4.1.

#### 3.3.4 O I 8446

In contrast to the famous O i 7771–5 triplet, this similar high-excitation O i 8446 feature (RMT No.4; $`\chi `$ = 9.52 eV) in the triplet system ($`3s^3S^o`$$`3p^3P`$) has barely been used for oxygen abundance determination, presumably because it is seriously blended with Fe i lines, We thus applied a profile-fitting technique (Takeda 1995a) to the analysis of this O i \+ Fe i 8446 blended feature, such as was done by Takeda et al. (1998b). The adopted $`gf`$ values of the O i components (8446.25, 8446.36, and 8446.76 $`\mathrm{\AA }`$) are ($`0.52`$, +0.17, and $`0.05`$) taken from Kurucz (1995), while those of the blended Fe i lines (8446.39 $`\mathrm{\AA }`$, $`\chi `$ = 4.99 eV and 8446.57 $`\mathrm{\AA }`$, $`\chi `$ = 4.91 eV) were the empirical values of ($`0.85`$ and $`1.89`$) determined by Takeda (1995b). The Fe abundance was simultaneously determined along with that of O as far as possible; otherwise, an appropriate value of the Fe abundance corresponding to the metallicity was assigned and fixed. The resulting oxygen abundances are given in Table 3, where the O i equivalent widths \[ $`W_\lambda `$(O i 8446) \] corresponding to the pure contribution of three O i component lines, which were inversely evaluated by spectrum synthesis while using the established solutions of the oxygen abundance, are also presented. With the equivalent widths of two Fe i lines similarly computed, we found that the estimated fractions of $`W_\lambda `$(O i 8446) / \[ $`W_\lambda `$ (O i 8446) + $`W_\lambda `$ (Fe i 8446.36) + $`W_\lambda `$ (Fe i 8446.57) \] turned out to be 81%, 98%, 53%, 72%, and 98%, for HD 44007, HD 84937, HD 165195, HD 175305, and HD 184266, respectively. The theoretically synthesized spectra computed with $`<\mathrm{log}ϵ_{7773}>`$ are shown in Figure 2.

#### 3.3.5 \[O I\] 6363/6300

We adopted Kurucz’s (1995) $`gf`$ value for the \[O i\] forbidden lines ($`2p^4{}_{}{}^{3}P`$$`2p^4{}_{}{}^{1}D`$); i.e., $`\mathrm{log}gf`$ = $`9.82`$ for \[O i\] 6300.30 ($`\chi `$ = 0.00 eV) and $`10.30`$ for \[O i\] 6363.78 ($`\chi `$ = 0.02 eV), though the former was usable only for CS 22892-052. The abundance results are given in Table 3, while the theoretical spectra corresponding to $`<\mathrm{log}ϵ_{7773}>`$ are shown in Figure 3. Note that the abundances for CS 22892-052 (6363 and 6300 lines) and HD 184266 (6363 line) are uncertain, because of the difficulty in measuring their equivalent widths accurately (i.e., line profiles of these lines are not well defined).

## 4 DISCUSSION

### 4.1 HD 184266: Importance of Turbulent Velocity

Before discussing the trend of the oxygen abundance, it may be worth paying attention to HD 184266, which shows markedly stronger O i lines (7771–5, 8446) than any other star, in contrast to the remarkable weakness of \[O i\] 6363 exhibiting a rather ambiguous profile.

As mentioned in §3.3.3, the abundances derived from three components of the O i 7771–5 turned out to be discordant with each other when the microturbulent velocity of 2.2 $`\mathrm{km}\mathrm{s}^1`$(based on Fe i lines) was used (cf. Table 3). The consistency can be accomplished only when this turbulence parameter is considerably raised up to $``$ 5 $`\mathrm{km}\mathrm{s}^1`$. We point out that this is very similar to the situation experienced by Takeda & Sadakane (1997) in their analysis of Population II horizontal-branch star HD 161817 (cf. §6.1 therein), in which they attributed this discrepancy to the depth-dependence of the turbulent velocity field increasing with atmospheric height

In fact, similar tomography on $`\xi `$ as was done by Takeda & Sadakane (1997) revealed that two groups of Fe i lines of different $`\chi `$ (lower excitation potential) lead to discrepant values for the $`\xi `$ value of HD 184266; i.e., 2.3 $`\mathrm{km}\mathrm{s}^1`$ with $`<\mathrm{log}\tau >0.6`$ (0 eV $`\chi <`$ 4 eV) and 1.8 $`\mathrm{km}\mathrm{s}^1`$ with $`<\mathrm{log}\tau >0.4`$ (4 eV $`\chi `$), indicating a tendency of upward-increasing turbulence. That such a similar phenomenon takes place in the atmosphere of both stars becomes even convincing when we recall HD 184266 is considered to be a horizontal-branch star (i.e., just same as HD 161817) as judged from its position in the HR diagram (cf. Fig. 3 in Pilachowski et al. 1996). Hence we may state that the atmospheric turbulent velocity field in these horizontal-branch stars grows with an increase in height, significantly affecting the strength of such high-excitation O i lines, because they become fairly strong due to relatively high $`T_{\mathrm{eff}}`$ and tend to form higher in the atmosphere.

It is not clear whether such a phenomenon has something to do with the metal-deficiency. Yet, the recent work by Gadun & Ploner (1999) is interesting in this connection, since their calculation indicates that a decrease in metallicity causes the following effects in stellar atmospheres.
– A growth of granulation contrast.
– A growth of atmospheric oscillation.
– An increase of temperature variation in the upper photosphere.
– Size of granules tends to shift toward smaller scales.
Accordingly, we had better pay attention to the treatment of turbulent velocity fields in the atmosphere of metal-poor stars more seriously, at least when saturated lines are concerned.

### 4.2 Permitted vs. Forbidden Lines

We now discuss the main topic of this paper; i.e., comparison of the oxygen abundances derived from different lines.

As can be seen from Figure 4, the abundances derived from both permitted line features of high excitation (O i 7771–5 and O i 8446) are in remarkable agreement with each other, which can be also intuitively confirmed from Figure 2. This means that these two abundances may be regarded as being essentially equivalent, and that O i (+ Fe i) 8446 is practically usable for oxygen abundance determination supplementing O i 7771–5.

On the other hand, the case of the forbidden line (\[O i\] 6363 or 6300) is more complicated. What we notice from Figure 4 is the large scatter in the 6363(6300) vs 7773 correlation. More precisely, while a good agreement is observed for HD 165195 and HD 175305, the forbidden \[O i\] line tends to yield lower abundance (typically by 0.3–0.4 dex) than those determined from the permitted O i lines for other stars.

According to Table 3, if the $`T_{\mathrm{eff}}`$ of the model atmosphere were increased (say, by $`200`$ K), it would be possible to bring them into consistency, while the the effect of changing $`\mathrm{log}g`$ acts in the same direction for both O i and \[O i\] lines. Yet, we would consider it rather unlikely that the $`T_{\mathrm{eff}}`$ values of our model atmospheres are correct for some stars on the one hand but not for others on the other, since our adopted $`T_{\mathrm{eff}}`$ scale is based on a consistent system of Pilachowski et al. (1996) (cf. §3.1).

Hence, we regard this discrepancy as being real, in the sense that it is unlikely to be attributed to any systematic error in abundance determination. Accordingly, in contrast to Population I G–K giants where the abundances from O i 7773 lines and \[O i\] 6300 do not show any systematic discordance (Takeda et al. 1998a), it may be stated that “metal-poor Population II G–K giants tend to exhibit abundance discrepancy between these two O i and \[O i\] lines, though this does not necessarily always happen (i.e., there are surely cases where the consistency is achieved).”

### 4.3 \[O/Fe\] vs. \[Fe/H\] Relation

The resulting \[O/Fe\] vs. \[Fe/H\] correlation for O i 7771–5 and \[O i\] 6363(6300) is depicted in Figure 5, where Israelian et al.’s (1998) results based on the OH lines are also shown for comparison. It can be seen from this figure that the \[O/Fe\] values from O i 7771–5 lines are reasonably consistent with the OH results showing a “steady increase” trend, while those from \[O i\] forbidden lines tend to lie below the O i or OH plots by several tenths dex with a considerably large scatter. In any case, we have reconfirmed the observational disagreement between the \[O/Fe\] vs. \[Fe/H\] relation derived from O i and \[O i\] lines mentioned in §1.

Then, which represents the truth? We have a preference for the O i permitted lines (7771–5/8446), because they show a clean trend consistent with that exhibited by OH lines. The large diversity of the \[O/Fe\] values indicated by \[O i\] lines gives us a feeling that these forbidden lines may be unreliable. Consequently, we conclude that the \[O/Fe\] vs. \[Fe/H\] relation for metal-poor stars has the “steady increase” trend, based on our permitted O i lines (7711–5/8446) analysis, lending support for the OH results reported by Israelian et al. (1998) and Boesgaard et al. (1999).

Turning our attention to other recent works, we note that Mishenina et al. (2000) also arrived at the same conclusion as ours based on their non-LTE analysis of the permitted O i 7771–5 triplet, as suggested by previous works (cf. §1). However, there are reports that even the permitted O i lines yield the “flat”-like trend similarly to \[O i\] lines (e.g., Carretta et al. 2000; Fig. 1 in Gustafsson 1999). The reason for this discordance is not clear; further observational work on a much larger sample of very metal-poor stars and analysis in a fairly consistent system will be needed until this confusion is finally settled.

### 4.4 Weakening of \[O I\] line?

Our choice (for the preference of O i and OH lines) naturally means that the abundances from \[O i\] lines tend to be erroneously underestimated for some reasons. What has happened to these forbidden lines ?

We suspect that this line may often suffer with an appreciable weakening in a non-classical way. As a matter of fact, the possibility of such a weakening was once remarked by Langer (1991), who proposed a model that the absorption trough of the low-excitation \[O i\] forbidden line may be filled with the \[O i\] emission from the surrounding nebulosity, thus leading to a weakening of the line. In this connection, it is interesting to refer to the \[O i\] 6363 line of HD 184266, which shows a large O i vs. \[O i\] discordance amounting to $``$ 0.5 dex (cf. Table 3). Let us pay attention to Figure 3, where we notice that the line profile of the \[O i\] 6363 line is rather complex and a kind of emission-like feature appears to exist (though not definite). Could it be an emission from the surrounding nebulosity, which, for example, was formed by mass ejection at the RGB phase in the past (recall that this is a horizontal-branch star)? Unfortunately, this line is too weak to make a definite argument even with this high S/N ratio, and it is also probable that what we see is nothing but noises. At any rate, we consider that Langer’s (1991) mechanism may be worth further investigation. Such a dilution mechanism due to emission lines (if any exists) should be relatively more important for cases where the strength of the \[O i\] absorption line is intrinsically weak (i.e., more efficient for metal-poor case), which might explain the reason why the discordance is observed only in Population II stars (but not in Population I).

In addition, we should not forget the possibility that the effect of atmospheric inhomogeneity may cause appreciable descrepancies of abundances derived from different lines when analyzed classically, which can be tackled only by detailed realistic (2D or 3D) modeling of the atmosphere of metal-poor stars (e.g., Asplund et al. 1999).

### 4.5 Comparison with Other $`\alpha `$-Elements

We thus conclude that \[O/Fe\] steadily increases from $``$+0.6 to $``$+1.0 as the metallicity becomes lower from \[Fe/H\] $`1.5`$ down to \[Fe/H\] $`3`$.

Frankly speaking, however, this must be a rather embarrasing trend hard to interpret for theoreticians who are constructing models of Galactic nucleosynthesis history, because other $`\alpha `$-elements (Mg, Si, Ca, Ti), which are believed to form in massive stars and ejected by type II SNe explosion like oxygen, generally show more or less the trend of flat “plateau” (i.e., \[$`\alpha `$/Fe\] $``$ 0.5 at \[Fe/H\] $`3`$; cf. Fig. 2 in Ryan, Norris, & Beers 1996). This can be confirmed also from the results of Mg, Si, Ca, and Ti derived for our program stars (cf. Table 2). This would imply that some kind of unusual enrichment (e.g., pre-Galactic origin, or by supermassive stars) may have taken place for oxygen (while not for Mg, Si, Ca, and Ti) at the very early phase of the Galaxy, which would have caused an exceptionally large \[O/Fe\] ratio at the old time of very low metallicity, though we are not qualified to state about wherether such a complicated modeling is possible or not.

Finally, we make one interesting remark concerning sulfur, another $`\alpha `$-element which has not been well studied so far. According to our results given in Table 2, which were determined from only one S i line at 8694.63 $`\mathrm{\AA }`$, the \[S/Fe\] ratio shows a steeply increasing trend (from \[S/Fe\] $``$ +0.3 at \[Fe/H\] $`1.5`$ to \[S/Fe\] $``$ +1.1 at \[Fe/H\] $`2.7`$), which is similar to the tendency of \[O/Fe\] but not to that of \[Mg/Fe\], \[Si/Fe\], \[Ca/Fe\], and \[Ti/Fe\]. Although this kind of behavior for \[S/Fe\] (as well as for \[O/Fe\]) is not consistent with the current theoretical prediction (e.g., Timmes et al. 1995), their similarity may be worth attention, which might be a key to understanding the difference between these two groups of $`\alpha `$-elements. More detailed analysis and discussion on S will be published in a separate paper (Takada-Hidai et al., in preparation).

## 5 CONCLUSIONS

We determined the oxygen abundance (along with the abundances of other elements) by a detailed non-LTE analysis for selected seven very metal-poor stars of 1/30 $``$ 1/1000 solar metallicity, based on the high-S/N spectra (in the red through near-IR region) observed with Keck HIRES, in order to study whether any significant systematic difference exist between the abundances derived from high-excitation O i permitted lines (7771–5, 8446) and those from low-excitation \[O i\] forbidden lines (6363, 6300).

The relatively hot ($`T_{\mathrm{eff}}`$ = 5600 K) horizontal-branch star HD 184266 turned out to be an interesting object, which shows markedly stronger O i permitted lines (7771–5, 8446) and very weak \[O i\] forbidden lines (6363, 6300). It revealed that the microturbulent velocity dispersion increases with height in the atmosphere of this star: this implies that one should take care about the choice of microturbulence in determining the abundance from saturated lines such as those permitted O i lines. Since the rather complex profile of \[O i\] 6363 line might be a sign of emission component (though not definite), Langer’s (1991) hypothesis (diluton due to the “filled-in” emission from the circumstellar nebulosity) may deserve special attention as a possible weakening mechanism for this forbidden line.

We found that the both O i 7771–5 and O i 8446 yield quite consistent abundances with each other. On the other hand, the abundance determined from \[O i\] 6363 (or 6300) is generally lower typically by a few tenths dex than that derived from O i permitted lines, though the extent of the difference varies from star to star (two stars show a reasonable consistency).

The resulting \[O/Fe\] vs. \[Fe/H\] relation based on the permitted O i 7771–5 triplet shows a tight and clear tendency that \[O/Fe\] increases steadily from $``$+0.6 to $``$+1.0 as \[Fe/H\] decreases from $`1.5`$ down to $`3`$, which is quite similar to the trend found by the recent analyses of OH lines in UV (Israelian et al. 1998; Boesgaard et al. 1999). On the other hand, the \[O/Fe\] values derived from \[O i\] lines, which tend to be lower than the results of O i permitted lines by $``$ 0.3 dex on the average, show a large diversity and considered to be unreliable compared to what was suggested from permitted O i lines.

Consequently, we would conclude that the most probable \[O/Fe\] vs. \[Fe/H\] relation at the very metal-deficient regime is the “steady increase” trend implied by O i permitted lines and OH lines in UV. We suspect that the \[O i\] forbidden lines tend to suffer with some kind of weakening, yielding an underestimated abundance, which becomes appreciable only in Population II metal-poor stars. Thus, according to our opinion, its use for abundance determination is questionable, in contrast to the general belief. All what we can state about the possible weakening mechanism is only speculative. Its cause might exist outer than the photosphere (e.g., nebulosity emission); alternatively, the photosphere itself might be responsible for the weakening (e.g., atmospheric inhomogeneity).

The \[O/Fe\] vs. \[Fe/H\] trend concluded in this paper can not be explained by the standard scenario of Galactic chemical evolution, since this does not conform to the tendency suggested from other well-studied $`\alpha `$-elements such as Mg, Si, Ca, and Ti. According to the by-product of this study, however, sulfur (another $`\alpha `$ element) revealed an interesting behavior, in the sense that \[S/Fe\] shows a similar tendency to \[O/Fe\]. We hope that this observational implication will inspire the motivation of theoreticians toward a construction of better and realitic modeling of Galactic chemical evolution.

We are grateful to M. Kuchner for the reduction of the Keck HIRES data of CS 22892-052 as well as for putting the reduced spectrum at the authors’ disposal. One of us (MTH) acknowledges the financial supports from grant-in-aid for the scientific research (A-2, No. 10044103) by Japan Society for the Promotion of Science as well as from grant-in-aid for research and education by Tokai University in the 1999 fiscal year, which enabled his observation with HIRES in 1999. This research has made use of the SIMBAD database, operated at CDS, Strasbourg, France.