text:
# The quark distributions of baryons

## 1 Introduction

The nucleons were considered as point-like particles when they were first isolated in the 30’s and later on they were found to have extended structure in the 50’s. The quark model suggested the nucleons as composite systems of more basic constituents of quarks and the lepton nucleon deep elastic scattering experiments in the latter 60’s confirmed the quark-parton structure of nucleons and led to a new era to consider the nucleons in terms of quark and gluon degrees of freedom in QCD. After more than three decades experimental and theoretical investigations of various deep inelastic scattering processes, the structure of the nucleons has been found to be more complicated than naively expected and there have been many surprises found in recent years concerning the sea quark content of the nucleons:

* There have been an extensive attention on the spin content of the proton raised by the observation of the Ellis-Jaffe sum rule violation and a much smaller helicity sum of quarks than naively expected .
* The observation of the Gottfried sum violation suggested a flavor asymmetry of $`u`$ and $`d`$ sea quarks inside the proton , or alternative possibility of including also some isospin symmetry breaking between proton and neutron .
* The current knowledge of the strange quark content of the proton is still very poor, since one is still unclear as to whether or not strange quarks are highly polarized inside the proton , and it is even more obscure whether or not the strange quark-antiquark distributions are symmetric .

It was commonly taken for granted that we understand better of the valence quark structure of the nucleons. However, the recent progress shows that the flavor and spin structure of the valence quarks is still not clear at $`x=1`$. For example, there are different predictions concerning the ratio $`d(x)/u(x)`$ at $`x1`$ from the perturbative QCD (pQCD) analysis  and the SU(6) quark-diquark model , and there are different predictions concerning the value of $`F_2^n(x)/F_2^p(x)`$ at large $`x`$, which has been taken to be $`1/4`$ as in the quark-diquark model in most parameterizations of quark distributions. Recent analysis  of experimental data from several processes suggests that $`F_2^n(x)/F_2^p(x)3/7`$ as $`x1`$, in favor of the pQCD prediction. The spin structure of the valence quarks is also found to be different near $`x=1`$ in these models, and predictions have been made concerning the non-dominant valence down ($`d`$) quark, so that $`\mathrm{\Delta }d(x)/d(x)=1/3`$ in the quark-diquark model , a result which is different from the pQCD prediction $`\mathrm{\Delta }q(x)/q(x)=1`$ for either $`u`$ and $`d`$ . At the moment, there is still no clear data in order to check these different predictions, although the available measurements  for the polarized $`d`$ quark distributions seem to be negative at large $`x`$, slightly in favor of the quark-diquark model prediction.

It is important to perform high precision measurements of available physical quantities and/or to measure new quantities related to the flavor and spin structure of the nucleons, in order to have a better understanding of the quark-gluon structure of the nucleon. However, it should be more meaningful and efficient if we can find a new domain where the same physics concerning the structure of the nucleons can manifest itself in a way that is more easy and clean to be detected and checked. It has been recently suggested by Schmidt, Yang, and I  that the quark structure of the $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ and the $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ are such new frontiers that can be used to test various ideas concerning the structure of the nucleons. In this talk I will review some most recent progress in this direction and review a case study  to check the theory on the quark distributions of the nucleons from the quark distributions of the $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$’s.

## 2 The quark structure of the $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$

There have been many theoretically studies concerning the quark structure of the $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$. It was found by Burkardt and Jaffe  that the $`u`$ and $`d`$ quarks inside a $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ should be negatively polarized from SU(3) symmetry. It was also pointed out by Soffer and I  that the flavor and spin content of the $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ can be used to test different predictions concerning the spin structure of the nucleon and the quark-antiquark asymmetry of the nucleon sea. Most recently, Schmidt, Yang and I found  that the flavor and spin structure of the $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ near $`x=1`$ can provide clean tests between perturbative QCD (pQCD) and the SU(6) quark-diquark model predictions. We also found that the non-dominant up ($`u`$) and down ($`d`$) quarks should be positively polarized at large $`x`$, even though their net spin contributions to the $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ might be zero or negative. There have been calculations of the explicit shapes for the quark fragmentation functions in a quark-diquark model  and for the quark distributions inside the $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ in the MIT bag model . The sea quark content of the $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ has been also studied by Boros, Londergan and Thomas and novel features in similar to the nucleon case have been suggested . Thus it is clear that the quark structure of $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ is a frontier which can enrich our understanding concerning the flavor and spin structure of the nucleons and provides a new domain to test various ideas concerning the hadron structure that come from the available nucleon studies.

Direct measurement of the quark distributions of the $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ is difficulty, since the $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ is a charge-neutral particle which cannot be accelerated as incident beam and its short life time makes it also difficult to be used as a target. However, the quark distributions and the quark fragmentation functions are interrelated quantities that can uncover the structure of the involved hadron. For example, we know that the quark distributions inside a hadron are related by crossing symmetry to the fragmentation functions of the same flavor quark to the same hadron, by a simple reciprocity relation

$$q_h(x)D_q^h(z),$$
(1)
where $`z=2pq/Q^2`$ is the momentum fraction of the produced hadron from the quark jet in the fragmentation process, and $`x=Q^2/2pq`$ is the Bjorken scaling variable corresponding to the momentum fraction of the quark from the hadron in the DIS process. Although such an approximate relation may be only valid at a specific scale $`Q^2`$ near $`x=1`$ and $`z=1`$ at leading order approximation, it can provide a reasonable connection between different physical quantities and lead to different predictions about the fragmentations based on our understanding of the quark structure of a hadron . Thus we can use various $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ fragmentation processes to test different predictions.

In principle we can test the different predictions by a measurement of a complete set of quark to $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ fragmentation functions. However, in practice we do not need such systematic studies of quark to $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ fragmentations before we can test the different predictions. Many processes have been suggested to measure various quark to $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ fragmentation functions:

* Jaffe and Burkardt  suggested one promising method to obtain a complete set of polarized fragmentation functions for different quark flavors based on the measurement of the helicity asymmetry for semi-inclusive production of $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ hyperons in $`e^+e^{}`$ annihilation on the $`Z^0`$ resonance.
* Measurements of the light-flavor quark fragmentations into $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ have been also suggested from polarized electron DIS process  and neutrino DIS process , based on the $`u`$-quark dominance assumption.
* There is also a recent interesting suggestion to determine the polarized fragmentation functions by measuring the helicity transfer asymmetry in the process $`p\stackrel{}{p}\stackrel{}{\mathrm{\Lambda }}X`$ .
* More recently, Soffer and I suggested  to measure a complete set of quark to $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ unpolarized and polarized fragmentation functions for different quark flavors by the systematic exploitation of unpolarized and polarized $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ and $`\overline{\mathrm{\Lambda }}`$ productions in neutrino, antineutrino and polarized electron DIS processes.

Thus we have a new and rich domain from where we can study the quark structure of the $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ both theoretically and experimentally. For example, a recent detailed analysis  of the available $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$-polarization data in $`e^+e^{}`$ annihilation at the $`Z`$-pole supports the prediction  that the $`u`$ and $`d`$ quarks inside the $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ should be positively polarized at large $`x`$, though their net helicities might be zero or negative.

## 3 The quark structure of the $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$

Although the $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ can provide a clean test of the different flavor and spin structure between different models, we still need a connection between the quark distributions inside the $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ and the quark fragmentation into a $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ and such a connection is not completely free from theoretical and experimental uncertainties. Thus it is meaningful to find a charged baryon which has also different flavor and spin structure between different models. The charged baryons other than nucleons, such as $`\mathrm{\Sigma }^\pm `$, may be used as beam to directly measure their own quark structure in case the structure of the target is comparatively well known. Using the $`\mathrm{\Sigma }^\pm `$ as beam in Drell-Yan processes has been suggested  for the purpose of studying the flavor asymmetry in the sea of the baryons, and the sea quarks of the $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$’s have been discussed . It has been recently found by Schmidt, Yang and I  that the $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$’s have the most significant difference in the flavor and spin structure of the valence quarks between the quark-diquark model and pQCD at medium to large $`x`$, and the measurement of Drell-Yan process for $`\mathrm{\Sigma }^\pm `$ beams on the isoscalar targets can test different predictions of the quark structure of the $`\mathrm{\Sigma }^\pm `$ baryons. It is also pointed out by Cao and Signal  recently that there are also quark-antiquark asymmetries in the $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$’s, i.e, for $`d`$-$`\overline{d}`$ distributions inside $`\mathrm{\Sigma }^+(uus)`$ and for $`u`$-$`\overline{u}`$ distributions inside $`\mathrm{\Sigma }^{}(dds)`$, in analogy to the strangeness quark-antiquark distribution asymmetry inside the nucleon from the baryon-meson fluctuation model . It should be interesting if one can find a physical quantity that can measure and test such quark-antiquark distribution asymmetries inside the $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$’s. Thus the quark structure of the $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$’s can be also a new domain to test different theories concerning the quark distributions of the nucleons.

## 4 A case study

As a case study to show that the measurement of the quark structure of the $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ may serve to test theory concerning the quark structure of the nucleon, we present a brief review on the spin and flavor structure of the valence quarks for the nucleon and the $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ in a light-cone SU(6) quark-spectator-diquark model .

As we know, it is proper to describe deep inelastic scattering as the sum of incoherent scatterings of the incident lepton on the partons in the infinite momentum frame or in the light-cone formalism. The unpolarized valence quark distributions $`u_v(x)`$ and $`d_v(x)`$ of the nucleon are given in this model  by

$`u_v(x)={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}a_S(x)+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{6}}a_V(x);`$
$`d_v(x)={\displaystyle \frac{1}{3}}a_V(x),`$ (2)
where $`a_D(x)`$ ($`D=S`$ for scalar spectator or $`V`$ for axial vector spectator) is normalized such that $`_0^1dxa_D(x)=3`$, and it denotes the amplitude for quark $`q`$ to be scattered while the spectator is in the diquark state $`D`$. Exact SU(6) symmetry provides the relation $`a_S(x)=a_V(x)`$, which implies the valence flavor symmetry $`u_v(x)=2d_v(x)`$. This gives the prediction $`F_2^n(x)/F_2^p(x)2/3`$ for all $`x`$, which is ruled out by the experimental observation $`F_2^n(x)/F_2^p(x)<1/2`$ for $`x1`$. The SU(6) quark-diquark model  introduces a breaking to the exact SU(6) symmetry by the mass difference between the scalar and vector diquarks and predicts $`d(x)/u(x)0`$ at $`x1`$, leading to a ratio $`F_2^n(x)/F_2^p(x)1/4`$, which could fit the data and has been accepted in most parameterizations of quark distributions for the nucleon. It has been shown that the SU(6) quark-spectator-diquark model can reproduce the $`u`$ and $`d`$ valence quark asymmetry that accounts for the observed ratio $`F_2^n(x)/F_2^p(x)`$ at large $`x`$ . This supports the quark-spectator picture of deep inelastic scattering in which the difference between the mass of the scalar and vector spectators is essential in order to reproduce the explicit SU(6) symmetry breaking while the bulk SU(6) symmetry of the quark model still holds.

The quark helicity distributions for the $`u`$ and $`d`$ quarks can be written as

$$\begin{array}{cccc}\mathrm{\Delta }u_v(x)=u_v^{}(x)u_v^{}(x)=\frac{1}{18}a_V(x)W_q^V(x)+\frac{1}{2}a_S(x)W_q^S(x);\hfill & & & \\ \mathrm{\Delta }d_v(x)=d_v^{}(x)d_v^{}(x)=\frac{1}{9}a_V(x)W_q^V(x),\hfill & & & \end{array}$$
(3)
in which $`W_q^S(x)`$ and $`W_q^V(x)`$ are the Melosh-Wigner correction factors  for the scalar and axial vector spectator-diquark cases. From Eq. (2) one gets

$`a_S(x)=2u_v(x)d_v(x);`$
$`a_V(x)=3d_v(x).`$ (4)
Combining Eqs. (3) and (4) we have

$`\mathrm{\Delta }u_v(x)=[u_v(x){\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}d_v(x)]W_q^S(x){\displaystyle \frac{1}{6}}d_v(x)W_q^V(x);`$
$`\mathrm{\Delta }d_v(x)={\displaystyle \frac{1}{3}}d_v(x)W_q^V(x).`$ (5)
Thus we arrive at simple relations  between the polarized and unpolarized quark distributions for the valence $`u`$ and $`d`$ quarks. The calculated polarization asymmetries $`A_1^N=2xg_1^N(x)/F_2^N(x)`$, including the Melosh-Wigner rotation, have been found  to be in reasonable agreement with the experimental data, at least for $`x0.1`$. A large asymmetry between $`W_q^S(x)`$ and $`W_q^V(x)`$ leads to a better fit to the data than that obtained from a small asymmetry.

The key point that the light-cone SU(6) quark-diquark model can give a good description of the experimental observation related to the proton spin quantities relies on the fact that the quark helicity measured in polarized deep inelastic scattering is different from the quark spin in the rest frame of the nucleon or in the quark model . Thus the observed small value of the quark helicity sum for all quarks is not necessarily in contradiction with the quark model in which the proton spin is provide by the valence quarks. From this sense, there is no serious “spin puzzle” or “spin crisis” as it was first understood. Of course, the sea quark content of the nucleon is complicated and it seems that the baryon-meson fluctuation configuration  composes one important part of the non-perturbative aspects of the nucleon. We should not expect that the valence quarks provide 100% of the proton spin, and the sea quarks and gluons should also contribute some part of the proton spin, thus it is meaningful to design new experimental methods to measure these contributions independently. Useful relations that can be used to measure the quark spin as meant in the quark model and the quark orbital angular momentum from a relativistic viewpoint have been discussed in Refs.  and . It has been pointed out  that the quark spin distributions $`\mathrm{\Delta }q_{QM}(x)`$ are connected with the quark helicity distributions $`\mathrm{\Delta }q(x)`$ and the quark transversity distributions $`\delta q(x)`$ by an approximate relation:

$$\mathrm{\Delta }q_{QM}(x)+\mathrm{\Delta }q(x)=2\delta q(x).$$
(6)
The quark orbital angular momentum $`L_q(x)`$ and the quark helicity distribution $`\mathrm{\Delta }q(x)`$ are also found  to be connected to the quark model spin distribution $`\mathrm{\Delta }q_{QM}(x)`$ by a relation:

$$\frac{1}{2}\mathrm{\Delta }q(x)+L_q(x)=\frac{1}{2}\mathrm{\Delta }q_{QM}(x),$$
(7)
which means that one can decompose the quark model spin contribution $`\mathrm{\Delta }q_{QM}(x)`$ by a quark helicity term $`\mathrm{\Delta }q(x)`$ plus an orbital angular momentum term $`L_q(x)`$. There is also a new relation connecting the quark orbital angular momentum with the measurable quark helicity distribution and transversity distribution:

$$\mathrm{\Delta }q(x)+L_q(x)=\delta q(x),$$
(8)
from which we may have new sum rules connecting the quark orbital angular momentum with the nucleon axial and tensor charges. The quark tranversity and orbital angular momentum distributions have been also calculated in the light-cone SU(6) quark-diquark model . Thus future measurements of new physical quantities related to the proton spin structure can be used to test whether the framework is correct or not, and detailed predictions and discussions can be found in Refs. . We point out that one of the predictions of the framework is the small helicity contribution from the anti-quarks and the available experimental data  are consistent with this prediction. This is different from most other works in which a large negative spin contribution from anti-quarks is required to reproduce the observed small quark helicity sum. In our framework the Melosh-Winger rotation  and the flavor asymmetry of the Melosh-Wigner rotation factors between the $`u`$ and $`d`$ quarks  are the main reason for the reduction of the quark helicity sum compared to the naive quark model prediction.

However, as I have pointed out in the Introduction, the quark distributions of the $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ can be also used as a new domain to check the light-cone SU(6) quark-diquark model. By applying the same analysis from the nucleon case to the $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ case by Schmidt, Yang, and I , we get the unpolarized quark distributions for the three valence $`u`$, $`d`$, and $`s`$ quarks for the $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$,

$$\begin{array}{cccc}& u_v(x)=d_v(x)=\frac{1}{4}a_{V(qs)}(x)+\frac{1}{12}a_{S(qs)}(x);\hfill & & \\ & s_v(x)=\frac{1}{3}a_{S(ud)}(x),\hfill & & \end{array}$$
(9)
where $`a_{D(q_1q_2)}(x)[\mathrm{d}^2\stackrel{}{k}_{}]|\phi (x,\stackrel{}{k}_{})|^2`$ ($`D=S`$ or $`V`$) denotes the amplitude for the quark $`q`$ being scattered while the spectator is in the diquark state $`D`$, and is normalized such that $`_0^1a_{D(q_1q_2)}(x)dx=3`$. Similar to the nucleon case, the quark spin distributions for the three valence quarks can be expressed as,

$$\begin{array}{cccc}& \mathrm{\Delta }u_v(x)=\mathrm{\Delta }d_v(x)=\frac{1}{12}a_{V(qs)}(x)W_{V(qs)}(x)+\frac{1}{12}a_{S(qs)}(x)W_{S(qs)}(x);\hfill & & \\ & \mathrm{\Delta }s_v(x)=\frac{1}{3}a_{S(ud)}(x)W_{S(ud)}(x),\hfill & & \end{array}$$
(10)
where $`W_D(x)`$ is the correction factor due to the Melosh-Wigner rotation. It has been shown  that the differences in the diquark masses $`m_{S(ud)}`$, $`m_{S(qs)}`$, and $`m_{V(qs)}`$ cause the symmetry breaking between $`a_{D(q_1q_2)}(x)`$ in a way that $`a_{S(ud)}(x)>a_{S(qs)}(x)>a_{V(qs)}(x)`$ at large $`x`$. Thus the quark-diquark model predicts, in the limit $`x1`$, that $`u(x)/s(x)0`$ for the unpolarized quark distributions, $`\mathrm{\Delta }s(x)/s(x)1`$ for the dominant valence $`s`$ quark, and also $`\mathrm{\Delta }u(x)/u(x)1`$ for the non-dominant valence $`u`$ and $`d`$ quarks.

Recently there have been detailed measurements of the $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ polarizations from the $`Z`$ decays in $`e^+e^{}`$-annihilation . The measured $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$-polarization has been compared with several theoretical calculations  based on simple ansatz such as $`\mathrm{\Delta }D_q^\mathrm{\Lambda }(z)=C_q(z)D_q^\mathrm{\Lambda }(z)`$ with constant coefficients $`C_q`$, or Monte Carlo event generators without a clear physical motivation. Schmidt, Yang and I  calculated the $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$-polarization in $`e^+e^{}`$-annihilation at the $`Z`$-pole by connecting the quark to $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ fragmentation functions with the quark distributions inside the $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$. It has been found  that the theoretical results from the quark-diquark model fit the data very well for the available $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$-polarization data in $`e^+e^{}`$ annihilation at the $`Z`$-pole within its present precision. Thus the quark-diquark model provides a successful description of the $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$-polarization $`P_\mathrm{\Lambda }(z)`$, in addition to its successful descriptions of the ratio $`F_2^n(x)/F_2^p(x)`$ and the polarized structure functions for the proton and neutron. However, pQCD can also give a good description of the data by taking into account the suppression of quark helicities compared to the SU(6) quark model values of quark spin distributions. Thus the prediction of positive polarizations for the $`u`$ and $`d`$ quarks inside the $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ at $`x1`$ is supported by the available experimental data.

It is still not possible to make a clear distinction between the two different predictions of the flavor and spin structure of the $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ by only the $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$-polarization in $`e^+e^{}`$-annihilation near the $`Z`$-pole. Thus new information from other quantities related to the flavor and spin structure of the $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ are needed before we can have a clean distinction between different predictions, and it seems that $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ ($`\overline{\mathrm{\Lambda }}`$) production in the neutrino (anti-neutrino) DIS processes  are more sensitive to different flavors.

## 5 Conclusion

From the above brief review on the recent progress in the investigations on the quark structure of the $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ and $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ hyperons, we arrive at the conclusion that the quark structure of $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ and $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ hyperons can provide new domains to test various theories concerning the spin and flavor structure of the nucleon. Thus the $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ and $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ Physics should be new directions to explore the quark distributions of baryons both theoretically and experimentally.

This review is based on the works with my collaborators Stan Brodsky, Andreas Schäfer, Ivan Schmidt, Jacques Soffer, and Jian-Jun Yang. I would like to express my great thanks to them for the enjoyable collaborations and the encouragements from them.


format: text

text:
# THE GLOBULAR CLUSTER 𝜔 CENTAURI AND THE OOSTERHOFF DICHOTOMY

## 1 INTRODUCTION

More than sixty years ago, Oosterhoff (1939) discovered that Galactic globular clusters could be classified into two groups according to the frequency distribution of the periods of their RR Lyrae variables. He suggested that the absolute median magnitude of the variables may differ from one cluster to another, but since his result was based on data for only five clusters, an extension of the investigation would be desirable. Subsequent studies by Oosterhoff (1944) and van Agt & Oosterhoff (1959) showed that the division into two groups was indeed more general.111Based on the data for 17 clusters, van Agt and Oosterhoff found that for group I (OoI) clusters, the mean period of the RRc variables $`<P_c>`$ is 0d.319, the mean period of the RRab variables $`<P_{ab}>`$ is 0d.549, and the proportion of the variables classified as type c ($`n_c/N`$) is $`0.17`$. The comparable figures for the OoII clusters are $`<P_c>=0.371`$, $`<P_{ab}>=0.647`$ and $`n_c/N=0.47`$. At the same time, Sandage (1958) demonstrated that a difference of $`\mathrm{\Delta }M_V=0.2`$ between the RR Lyrae variables in the two groups could account for the observed difference in the periods. Meanwhile, evidence for a connection between Oosterhoff type and heavy element abundance was mounting. Arp (1955) reported that the spectra of giant stars in the OoII clusters M15 and M92 had excessively weak metal lines and Kinman (1959) reached a similar conclusion in a study of integrated spectra of globular clusters. (Kinman’s investigation was based on the spectral type obtained from a comparison of the G band with the H$`\alpha `$ line.) As a result of these findings, it is generally assumed that Oosterhoff type is associated with metal abundance. However, in their seminal paper on the Oosterhoff groups, van Albada and Baker (1973) pointed out that the distribution of color on the horizontal branch was a more important factor. They found that the fraction of HB stars on the blue side of the RR Lyrae gap was greater in OoII clusters. Consequently, they suggested that the RR Lyrae variables in the OoII clusters must be evolving from blue to red through the instability strip, while those in the OoI clusters evolve from red to blue. This difference in direction of evolution, combined with a hysteresis effect in the pulsations could account for the difference in periods and the different proportions of RRc stars between the two groups. Later, Gratton, Tornambè & Ortolani (1986) and Lee, Demarque & Zinn (1990, hereafter LDZ) pointed out that the RR Lyrae variables in the OoII clusters could be post ZAHB stars whose ZAHB phase is on the blue side of the instability strip. One would therefore expect the RR Lyrae variables in the OoII clusters to evolve redward and to have lower masses and higher luminosities than those in OoI clusters.

In Oosterhoff’s original investigations, $`\omega `$ Centauri was considered to belong to group II, the long period group, but when Freeman & Rodgers (1975) discovered that there was a diversity in composition among its RR Lyrae variables, some investigators recognized that it had properties of both groups. Butler, Dickens & Epps (1978) pointed out that the RR Lyrae variables with \[Fe/H\] greater than $`1`$ have the characteristics of type I and that the more metal poor stars exhibit type II characteristics. Taking a different approach, Caputo & Castellani (1975) demonstrated that the period-frequency plot for the low luminosity RRab stars showed OoI characteristics and suggested that $`\omega `$ Cen provides a link between the two Oosterhoff groups. The purpose of the present investigation is to use pulsation theory to derive relative masses for the $`\omega `$ Cen RR Lyrae variables to test the hypothesis that the OoII variables have lower masses and higher luminosities than the OoI variables. Our study is based on the observations made by the OGLE team.

## 2 THE OGLE DATA FOR RR LYRAE VARIABLES IN $`\omega `$ CENTAURI

### 2.1 Light curves, period-luminosity and period-amplitude relations

In 1993, 1994 and 1995, CCD observations of $`\omega `$ Centauri were made as a side-project of the OGLE (Optical Gravitational Lensing Experiment) team. As a result, three papers on variable stars have been published by Kaluzny and his collaborators (Kaluzny et al. 1996, 1997a, 1997b). The first two papers deal with eclipsing binaries, SX PHe stars and spotted variables, and the third, hereafter referred to as K97b, presents periods and light curves for 140 RR Lyrae and population II Cepheid variables.

The present investigation is based on the $`V`$ magnitudes for 128 of the stars studied by K97b. Our sample consists of all of the stars with mean V magnitude between $`14.0`$ and $`15.2`$ and periods less than 0d.9, with the exception of OGLE# 95, 96, 171 and 208 for which K97b published periods close to one half day and amplitudes less than $`0.2`$ mag. The OGLE observations included seven different fields: 5139A, B, C, BC, D, E and F. Field 5139B, which covered the most central part of the cluster, contained more RR Lyrae variables than any of the other fields, but many of these stars were included in other fields as well. Since there are zero point shifts as large as $`0.05`$ mag from one field to another, it was desirable to consider as many stars as possible in one field only. Consequently, if a star was observed in field B, our analysis is based only on the observations in field B. Some stars were observed only in fields E and F, and in these cases, we used the data from field E. In general, we included only magnitudes for which the listed error was less than $`0.02`$ mag for our analysis. However, for OGLE #194, we included all magnitudes with errors less than $`0.03`$ in order to obtain sufficient phase coverage..

To begin our analysis, we plotted a light curve for each star using the period listed in Table 1 of K97b. For some stars, we found small phase shifts in the curves, and in these cases, we revised the periods. Our adopted periods are listed in Table 1 and light curves, arranged in order of increasing period, are shown in Figure 1. All but one of the periods agree to within 0d.0001 of those published by K97b. For star OGLE #149, we found a much shorter period, 0d.378 compared with the K97b value 0d.609. An examination of Fig. 1 shows how the general characteristics of the light curves change with period. It was in a study of the RR Lyrae variables in $`\omega `$ Cen that Bailey (1902) set up his three subclasses $`a`$, $`b`$ and $`c`$. He considered V8 (OGLE # 199, P=0d.5213) to be a typical star for subclass $`a`$, V3 (OGLE #184, P=0d.84126) for subclass $`b`$ and V35 (OGLE #78, P=0d.3868) for subclass $`c`$. The stars of subclass $`c`$ have the shortest periods and type $`b`$ have the longest periods. In addition, the light curves for the three subclasses differ in amplitude and in shape. It was subsequently demonstrated by Schwarzschild (1940), in a test of the period-density relation for RR Lyrae variables in M3, that the $`c`$-type variables were most likely pulsating in the first overtone, while the $`a`$\- and $`b`$\- types were pulsating in the fundamental mode. Since this mode difference was recognized, the distinction between $`a`$ and $`b`$ has usually been disregarded and both groups have been referred to as RRab types. However, because of the high quality of the light curves of Fig. 1, the difference between types $`a`$ and $`b`$ is very clear. There is a sudden change in slope about halfway up the rising branch of the $`b`$ type light curves. Other stars classified as $`b`$ by Bailey and subsequently by Martin (1938) in his major study of $`\omega `$ Cen are variables 15, 26, 34, 38, 54 and 85 (OGLE # 124, 120, 90, 170, 74 and 176 respectively) and the light curves for all of these stars show that same characteristic.

In Table 1, we list for each star the OGLE ID#, the variable number from Sawyer Hogg’s (1973) catalogue,222 OGLE # 191 and #71 (V184 and V185) were discovered by Butler et al. (1978). the field, our adopted period, the $`V`$ amplitude, the mean $`V`$ magnitude and the mode of pulsation according to the location of the star in the period-amplitude diagram. The period-luminosity (P-L) and period-amplitude (P-A) relations are plotted in Fig. 2. The points in the P-A diagram seem to fall into different regimes which we interprete to be due to different modes of pulsation and have therefore plotted a different symbol for each mode. Also, among the fundamental mode and second overtone pulsators, there are two sequences in the P-A plot. A mean magnitude of $`14.65`$ roughly divides the stars into these two sequences. We assume these occur because stars of both Oosterhoff classes are present in $`\omega `$ Cen. This will be discussed further in section 3. In Table 1, the fundamental mode pulsators are denoted as F and the overtone pulsators as 1st, 2nd or 3rd, depending on the mode of pulsation. The amplitudes and mean magnitudes listed in Table 1 were obtained from fits of the V magnitudes to a Fourier series of the form:

$`mag=A_0+{\displaystyle \underset{j=1,n}{}}A_j\mathrm{cos}(j\omega t+\varphi _j)`$ (1)
where $`\omega `$ is ($`2\pi `$/period). For each star, the epoch was taken as HJD $`2449000.000`$ so that $`t`$ in the equation refers to (HJD-$`2449000.000`$) and HJD represents the heliocentric Julian date of the observation.333OGLE #71 and #119 have periods very close to 0d.33 and as a result, the phase coverage was not complete. However, for both of these stars, the maximum and minimum on the light curve were well defined and so we estimated the amplitude from these. For the fundamental mode pulsators, the order of the fit $`n`$ was 8 and for the overtone pulsators, it was 6. The adopted mean $`V`$ magnitude is $`A_0`$ from the fit of equation 1. In order to classify the light curves of the fundamental mode pulsators as normal (n) or peculiar (p), we used equations derived by Kovács & Kanbur (1998) for testing the compatibilty condition of Jurcsik & Kovács (1996, hereafter JK).

The mean periods for the stars in our sample are as follows: 0d.649 for the 59 fundamental mode, 0d.383 for the 48 first overtone and 0d.304 for the 21 second and third overtone pulsators. The mean periods for the fundamental and first overtone are very close to those derived by van Agt and Oosterhoff (1959) for the Oosterhoff type II clusters. Thus, even though $`\omega `$ Cen seems to contain RR Lyrae variables of both Oosterhoff groups, most belong to group II.

### 2.2 Evidence for Second Overtone Pulsation

Although we have classified many of the RR Lyrae stars as second overtone pulsators (RRe stars), the possibility of the existence of RRe stars has been the subject of some debate in the literature. A few years ago, Stellingwerf, Gautschy & Dickens (1987) calculated a model for a second-overtone pulsator with an amplitude similar to first overtone pulsators. They predicted that the light variation of an RRe star should have a sharper peak at maximum light. However, they noted that they could not exclude the possibility that RRe stars may have lower amplitudes and sinusoidal light variations. The RRe candidates that we have identified in $`\omega `$ Cen have sinusoidal light variations and low amplitudes compared to the fundamental mode and first overtone pulsators. This is illustrated in Figure 3 where we show the light curves for the three stars that Bailey considered the prototypes for his subclasses $`a`$, $`b`$ and $`c`$ along with the curve for OGLE #191 (V184), one of the stars we have classified as RRe. There is a distinct progression in amplitude and degree of symmetry from subclass $`a`$ through $`c`$ and #191 forms a natural extension to the sequence.

Studies of P-A relations have led many other investigators to recognize plausible RRe candidates. Evidence for an RRe star in the field (V2109 Cygni) has been presented by Kiss et al. (1999). Credible RRe candidates have also been identified in the globular clusters M68 (van Albada & Baker 1973), NGC 4833 (Demers & Wehlau 1977), IC 4499 (Clement, Dickens & Bingham 1979, Walker & Nemec 1996), M3 (Kaluzny et al. 1998, hereafter K98) and M5 (Kaluzny et al. 2000, hereafter K2000). In addition, recent studies of M2 (Lee & Carney 1999a) and NGC 5466 (Corwin, Carney & Nifong 1999) indicate that there may be second overtone pulsators in these clusters as well. However, Kovács (1998a) compared the RRe candidates in M68 and IC 4499 with the other RRc stars and concluded that their relative magnitudes and colors were incompatible with the assumption that they were RRe stars. Furthermore, the models of Bono et al. (1997, hereafter referred to as B97) predict that a plot of amplitude versus period (or temperature) for first overtone pulsators shows a characteristic ‘bell’ shape with amplitudes decreasing at shorter periods and higher temperatures. One would therefore expect the first overtone variables with the shortest periods to have the lowest amplitudes. This is exactly what Clement & Shelton (1999a) found in a recent study of the globular cluster M9; the P-A plot for the overtone pulsators had the classic ‘bell’ shape. Thus, it is possible that some of the short-period, low-amplitude variables in $`\omega `$ Cen are pulsating in the first overtone mode. Nevertheless, we believe that the shifts in the period-luminosity plot for the stars in the different period-amplitude regimes of Fig. 2 indicate the existence of more than two pulsation modes. Among the stars plotted in the upper panel of Fig. 2 with $`<V>`$ between $`14.5`$ and $`14.65`$, the RRe candidates (solid triangles) have $`\mathrm{log}P`$ in the range $`0.55`$ to $`0.45`$ while the other RRc stars (open circles) have longer periods ($`\mathrm{log}P`$ between $`0.45`$ and $`0.35`$). The luminosities of both groups are comparable. RRe stars are expected to have shorter periods and lower amplitudes so we might assume that the stars with shorter periods are RRe stars. On the other hand, if they are all RRc stars, the stars with shorter periods must have higher temperatures and/or higher masses. This is required by the period-density relation (see equation (7)). If the temperatures are the same, the stars with shorter periods must have higher masses. However, when we consider the amplitudes, it turns out that the short period stars can not have higher masses. B97 made a number of plots to illustrate the dependence of amplitude for first overtone pulsators on temperature, mass and luminosity. Their diagrams demonstrate that, at constant temperature and luminosity, stars with lower amplitudes have lower not higher masses. This implies that if the solid triangles represent first overtone pulsators, they must have higher temperatures than the others. In fact, they must be hotter by $`\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{log}T_e0.029`$ (almost 500K). Another puzzling feature to note in the period-amplitude plot of Fig. 2 is the general tendency for amplitude to decrease with increasing period for the solid triangles brighter than $`<V>=14.65`$. This is not the characteristic ‘bell’ shape predicted by B97 for period amplitude plots of first overtone variables. We therefore conclude that these stars are probably not first overtone pulsators; rather they are pulsating in the second overtone mode. There may even be third overtone pulsators among the RR Lyrae population in $`\omega `$ Cen!

Most of the second and third overtone pulsators listed in Table 1 have no Sawyer Hogg numbers. This is because their amplitudes are generally lower than those of the RRc stars and as a result, they were not identified in the earlier photographic studies of $`\omega `$ Cen by Bailey (1902) and Martin (1938). It is also possible that the four stars that we exluded from our investigation, OGLE #95, 96, 171 and 208 are second overtone pulsators.

An independent argument for the existence of RRe stars has been proposed by the MACHO consortium. In a study of RR Lyrae variables in the LMC, Alcock et al. (1996) showed that the period frequency distribution had three peaks, at periods of 0d.58, 0d.34, and 0d.28 respectively. They interpreted this to mean there were three pulsation modes. In Fig. 4, we plot a period-frequency distribution for the OGLE sample of $`\omega `$ Cen RR Lyrae variables. It also has three peaks, but the periods associated with the peaks are longer than those in the LMC. They occur at periods of 0d.63, 0d.40 and 0d.32. We assume that the periods for the peaks differ because most of the RR Lyrae variables in $`\omega `$ Cen have OoII characteristics, while the LMC has mainly an OoI population. An examination of Figure 2 shows that, although there are some RRc stars with periods of approximately 0d.32 ($`\mathrm{log}P=0.49`$), the peak would not occur if there were no RRe stars. We therefore concur with Alcock et al. that the reason for the extra peak at short periods in the period-frequency distribution of both systems is the presence of RRe stars. There is another important difference between the period-frequency distributions of $`\omega `$ Cen and the LMC – the size of the peaks. For $`\omega `$ Cen, they are all at approximately the same height, but for the LMC, the height of the peak increases with period, thus implying there are more RRab stars than RRc stars and more RRc stars than RRe stars. It is well known that OoI systems have more RRab stars than RRc stars and van Albada and Baker (1973) attributed this to different predominant directions of evolution through the instability strip for the two groups, accompanied by a hysteresis effect in the pulsation. This could account for the fact that the LMC has significantly fewer RRe stars than RRc stars. However, it may also be a detection problem because the RRe stars have lower amplitudes.

### 2.3 Evidence for Non-Radial Pulsations

With accurate CCD photometry, it is possible to identify low level changes in the amplitudes of RR Lyrae variables and a number of such changes have been noted. Walker (1994) found short term variations in the light curve of the short period RRc (RRe candidate) star V5 in M68. More recently, Olech and his collaborators found changes on time scales of a few days in the light curves of three RRc stars in M55 (Olech et al. 1999a) and one in M5 (Olech et al. 1999b). They also found that these stars all had multiple periods. For example, in their analysis of V104 in M5, they identified two clear peaks in the periodogram at periods of 0d.332 and 0d.311 and they attributed these to the presence of non-radial oscillations, similar to those observed in many $`\delta `$ Scuti stars. Theoretical calculations made by Van Hoolst et al. (1998) have demonstrated that non-radial modes can be excited in RR Lyrae variables as well. Non-radial oscillations have also been detected in some RR Lyrae stars in the Galactic Bulge by Moskalik (2000) and in the LMC by Kovács et al. (2000).

The OGLE dataset for $`\omega `$ Cen includes a number of RR Lyrae stars that change on a time scale of days. In particular, K97b commented on the instability of the light curve of #162, but an examination of the light curves of Fig. 1 indicates that there are others as well. In Fig. 5, we show a light curve for #186, based on 10 consecutive nights in 1995. The observations for each night are plotted with a different symbol and it is very clear that there are changes on the scale of a few days. In Fig. 6, we present $`\mathrm{\Theta }`$-transforms for #186; the real data are plotted in the upper panel and the prewhitened data in the lower panel. The diagram indicates that there are two well defined periods, just as Olech et al. found for the stars that they studied. Thus we conclude that #186 is an RRe star that exhibits non-radial pulsations.

### 2.4 Physical Properties derived from Fourier parameters

#### 2.4.1 RRc stars

In the last few years, two methods have been devised for deriving luminosities of RR Lyrae variables from Fourier parameters. Since there is a range of more than $`0.5`$ in the apparent $`V`$ magnitude among the RR Lyrae variables in $`\omega `$ Cen, it provides a good sample for testing these methods.

In an investigation of hydrodynamic pulsation models for RRc stars, Simon & Clement (1993a,b) analysed the light curves and derived the following relationships:

$`\mathrm{log}L/L_{}=1.04\mathrm{log}P0.058\varphi _{31}+2.41`$ (2)
$`\mathrm{log}M/M_{}=0.52\mathrm{log}P0.11\varphi _{31}+0.39`$ (3)
where $`L/L_{}`$ is the luminosity in terms of the Sun’s luminosity, $`M/M_{}`$ is the mass in solar units, $`P`$ is the pulsation period in days, $`\varphi _{31}`$ is the Fourier phase difference ($`\varphi _33\varphi _1`$) computed from the fit of equation (1) to the points. (The standard deviations of the fits for $`\mathrm{log}L/L_{}`$ and $`\mathrm{log}M/M_{}`$ to equations (2) and (3) were $`\sigma =0.025`$ and $`0.03`$ respectively.) Thus the analysis indicated that $`\varphi _{31}`$ depends essentially on mass and luminosity and that it is insensitive to metallicity. This means that equations (2) and (3) can be applied to stars with different metal abundance. Once the mass and luminosity have been evaluated, the effective temperature can also be calculated from the period-density relation which can be expressed in the following form:

$`\mathrm{log}T_e=3.2650.3026\mathrm{log}P0.1777\mathrm{log}M/M_{}+0.2402\mathrm{log}L/L_{}`$ (4)
Kovács and his collaborators took a different approach. They derived empirical formulae for calculating $`M_V`$ by studying systems in which there are large numbers of RR Lyrae variables, e. g. the Sculptor dwarf galaxy. For the RRc stars, Kovács (1998b) derived the following formula for calculating the absolute magnitude:

$`M_V=1.2610.961P0.044\varphi _{21}4.447A_4`$ (5)
where $`P`$ is the period, $`\varphi _{21}`$ is the phase difference $`(\varphi _22\varphi _1)`$ based on a sine series fit, $`A_4`$ is the fourth order amplitude and the standard deviation of the fit was $`0.042`$. The zero point was based on the Baade-Wesselink luminosity scale of Clementini et al. (1995). It should be noted that the luminosity scale for RR Lyrae variables is still the subject of some controversy, but even if there is an error in the zero point for equation (5), the relative ranking of the magnitudes will not be affected.

In Table 2, we list the Fourier phase differences $`\varphi _{21}`$, $`\varphi _{31}`$, (along with their errors) and the amplitude $`A_4`$ for all of the overtone pulsators derived from equation (1). Also included are $`M_V`$, $`\mathrm{log}L/L_{}`$ and $`M/M_{}`$ calculated from equations (2), (3) and (5) and \[Fe/H\]hk values recently determined by Rey et al. (2000, hereafter R2000) from C$`aby`$ photometry. The stars are arranged in order of increasing period. The asterisks beside some of the star numbers refer to the Oosterhoff type and will be discussed further in section $`3.1`$. In our calculations of $`M_V`$, $`\mathrm{log}L/L_{}`$ and $`M/M_{}`$, we included only the stars for which the error in the phase difference is less than $`0.2`$. For most of the short-period stars, the errors are large, particularly those for $`\varphi _{31}`$. This is because of their low amplitudes and sinusoidal light curves. Kovács’ Fourier fit was based on a sine series, but the parameters that we list in Table 2 are based on a cosine series. Therefore, to put our values for the phase differences on the same system as his, we subtracted $`1.57`$ from $`\varphi _{21}`$ before we computed $`M_V`$. In Fig. 7, we plot the computed $`\mathrm{log}L`$ and $`M_V`$ against the mean $`V`$ magnitude. The first overtone pulsators are plotted as solid circles and the second overtone pulsators as open triangles. The crosses represent stars not considered to be cluster members. The open circles enclosed in boxes denote four anomalous variables #132, #169 (V123), #185 (V47) and #73 (V68) which all have unusually high values of $`\varphi _{21}`$ according to Table 2. We have classified them as RRc stars even though they all have periods greater than 0d.44. The envelope lines in the upper panel are separated by $`\mathrm{\Delta }V=0.12`$, the uncertainty in the calibration of equation (2) and most of the solid circles lie either on these lines or between them. It appears that equation (2) is effective for predicting the relative luminosities of the RRc stars. The envelope lines in the lower panel are separated by $`0.085`$, the uncertainty in Kovács’ (1998b) calibration and here the fit is not quite so good. For the faintest first overtone pulsators, the predicted magnitudes are too bright. On the other hand, equation (5) predicts fainter values of $`M_V`$ for the second overtone pulsators due to their shorter periods and lower $`A_4`$. No values of $`\mathrm{log}L`$ were computed for second overtone pulsators because the errors in their $`\varphi _{31}`$ values were all greater than our threshold $`0.2`$ because of their low amplitudes.

In Fig. 8, we show the relationship between $`\mathrm{log}L`$ and $`M_V`$ calculated from the Fourier parameters. They correlate well and this leads us to conclude that the two outliers plotted as crosses in Fig. 7 at $`M_V0.8`$ (#97 and #192) are not cluster members. They just happen to be in the field of view. Another star that is probably not a member is #181 which, with $`<V>=15.181`$, is off the scale of Fig. 7. However, it is plotted in Fig. 8 and lies between the envelope lines. The outlier at $`M_V=0.477,\mathrm{log}L=1.77`$ in Fig. 8 is star # 185 (P=0d.485), one of the anomalous stars with large $`\varphi _{21}`$. The light curve for this star has an inflection on the rising branch that is different from most of the other RRc stars. The light curve for #169 is similar, but it is not plotted in Fig. 8 because its $`\varphi _{31}`$ error is greater than $`0.2`$. If it were, the point would also lie to the right of the envelope lines.

#### 2.4.2 RRab stars

An empirical formula for relating the absolute magnitude to period and Fourier coefficients for RRab stars was derived by Kovács & Jurcsik (1996):

$`M_V=1.2211.396P0.477A_1+0.103\varphi _{31}`$ (6)
In Table 3, we list the Fourier amplitude $`A_1`$, phase difference $`\varphi _{31}`$, $`M_V`$ calculated from equation (6) for the RRab variables with ‘normal’ light curves and the \[Fe/H\]hk values recently determined by R2000. The stars are listed in order of increasing period. The Fourier coefficients in equation (6) are based on a sine series. Therefore, to put our coefficients from Table 3 on the appropriate system, we added $`3.14`$ to $`\varphi _{31}`$ before calculating $`M_V`$. In Fig. 9, we plot $`M_V`$ against $`<V>`$ and the two quantities correlate reasonably well. However, the fit for the $`\omega `$ Cen RRab stars is not as good as the fits for NGC 6171 and M3 based on the observations of Clement & Shelton (1997) and Kaluzny et al (1998). The envelope lines have a slope of unity and their separation $`\mathrm{\Delta }V=0.1`$ represents the uncertainty in the values of $`M_V`$ derived from equation (6). Most of the points fall between the two lines, but #174 (V84) with $`<V>=14.291`$ is displaced by more than $`0.3`$ mag. Bailey did not determine a period for this star, but in Fig. 1, it is clear that its light curve has the classic ‘$`b`$’ characteristics in spite of its relatively short period (0d.5799). In their paper on the chemical inhomogeneity of $`\omega `$ Centauri, Freeman & Rodgers (1975) found that the strength of the Ca II K-line for this star was greater than that of any of the other 27 RR Lyrae variables in their sample. We therefore conclude that #174 (V84) is a foreground star that belongs to a different population.

## 3 THE OOSTERHOFF DICHOTOMY IN $`\omega `$ CENTAURI

### 3.1 The Period-Amplitude Relation

In a study of the period-amplitude relation of RRab stars in the OoI globular clusters M107, M4, M5, M3, and the OoII clusters M9, M68 and M92, Clement & Shelton (1999b) found that the period-amplitude relation for RRab stars appears to be a function of Oosterhoff type. They therefore concluded that evolutionary effects were more important than metal abundance for determining where a star lies in the period-amplitude plane provided the star had a ‘normal’ light curve. In Fig. 10, we plot $`A_V`$ versus $`\mathrm{log}P`$ for the $`\omega `$ Cen fundamental mode pulsators with ‘normal’ light curves and for first overtone stars with errors less than $`0.2`$ in $`\varphi _{31}`$. Only stars that are considered to be members of the $`\omega `$ Cen population according to the discussion in sections $`\mathrm{2.4.1}`$ and $`\mathrm{2.4.2}`$ are included in the plot. Stars with $`<V>14.65`$ are plotted as solid triangles or solid circles and the fainter stars are plotted as open triangles or open circles. The straight line between $`\mathrm{log}P=0.24`$ and $`0.05`$ is a least squares fit to the RRab stars with $`<V>14.65`$ and its location in the P-A plane is close to the line that Clement & Shelton (1999b) derived for OoII RRab stars. Most of the (solid) points lie very close to this line; their mean deviation $`<\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{log}P>`$ is $`0.014`$. Their mean period is 0d.673, a value appropriate for an OoII classification. Jurcsik (1998a) has previously pointed out that the bulk of the RRab stars in $`\omega `$ Cen comprise a very homogeneous group and one can see this in Fig. 10. The straight line between $`\mathrm{log}P=0.32`$ and $`0.14`$ is the OoI P-A relation that Clement & Shelton (1999b) derived from the M3 data of K98. Several of the fainter RRab stars (the open circles and the open triangles) lie close to this OoI relation. The mean period for the fainter stars is 0d.542, a typical OoI value. Thus the P-A relation for the RRab seems to be effective for distinguishing between Oosterhoff types. The fainter RRab stars are more metal rich on the average; their mean \[Fe/H\] is $`1.53`$ compared with $`1.74`$ for the stars with $`<V>14.65`$. However, there is not a strong correlation between $`<V>`$ and \[Fe/H\]. This point has already been made by R2000 and by Demarque et al. (2000) who note that the luminosity also depends on evolutionary status or HB morphology.

The other lines in Fig. 10 represent least squares fits to the P-A relations for the RRc stars in M3 (OoI) and M68 (OoII) based on the data of K98 and Walker (1994). In this case, the distinction between OoI and II is not so marked for stars brighter or fainter than $`14.65`$. It seems that, for the RRc stars, the $`<V>=14.65`$ cutoff distinguishing between OoI and OoII types is too faint. Therefore, in our discussion of RRc stars in the next section, we decide Oosterhoff type according to position in the P-A diagram. RRc stars with periods less than 0d.35 lie closer to the M3 line and so we consider them to be OoI variables. Stars with periods in the range 0d.35 to 0d.43 are considered to be OoII variables. The OoI stars are indicated by single asterisks and the OoII stars by double asterisks in Table 2.

A curious feature of Fig. 10 is the existence of first overtone pulsators with periods in the range of 0d.44 to 0d.54. M68 does not have any overtone pulsators with such long periods, even among the double-mode pulsators whose first overtone periods range from 0d.39 to 0d.41. These long period stars in $`\omega `$ Cen are brighter than the others and as we noted in section $`2.4`$, they have unusually large values for $`\varphi _{21}`$. The stars with the inflection on the rising branch of the light curves (#169 and #185) are among them. The recent study of M5 by K2000 shows that M5-V76 has similar properties.

### 3.2 The Masses and Luminosities of the RRc stars

In section $`\mathrm{2.4.1}`$, we showed that equation (2), which was derived from hydrodynamic pulsation models by Simon & Clement (1993a), successfully ranks the relative luminosities of the $`\omega `$ Cen RRc stars. K2000 reached the same conclusion in their recent study of M5. We now use the masses computed from equation (3), which was also derived from the models, to compare the masses and luminosites of RRc stars in clusters belonging to both Oosterhoff groups. Our results are summarized in Table 4 where we compare the data for $`\omega `$ Cen with six other well studied globular clusters, three from each Oosterhoff group. These are M107 (Clement & Shelton 1997), M5 (K2000), M3 (K98), M55 (Olech et al. 1999a), M68 (Walker 1994) and M15 (Clement & Shelton 1996, based on the data of Silbermann & Smith 1995). For each cluster, we list \[Fe/H\], the number of stars analysed, their mean period, mean mass, mean luminosity and mean temperature. For these last three quantities, we also include the standard error of the mean. Most of the \[Fe/H\] values are taken from the compilation of Zinn (1985), but for $`\omega `$ Cen, they are means of the \[Fe/H\]hk values derived for the individual stars by R2000. The $`\omega `$ Cen variables are segregated according to Oosterhoff type. The four bright stars with periods greater than 0d.44 are not included. Their derived masses are uncertain because they are well below the range of the models which were computed for masses ranging from $`0.55`$ to $`0.85M_{}`$. The clusters are arranged in order of increasing $`\mathrm{log}L/L_{}`$ which is, in general, the order of decreasing metal abundance and decreasing temperature. The mean period increases through the sequence until M68 and M15, the two OoII clusters that have the highest frequency of double-mode RR Lyrae variables (RRd stars).444Recent CCD observations of the RRd stars in M68 and M15 have been published by Walker (1994) and Purdue et al. (1995) respectively. In these two clusters, the overtone pulsators with periods longer than 0d.39 are RRd stars and as a result, the mean periods for their RRc stars are shorter than those for M55. The masses calculated from equation (3) are low compared with those derived from evolutionary models (Dorman 1992) and other investigations of pulsation. However, the relative ranking is in agreement with masses derived from the analysis of RRd stars. Studies of pulsation models by Kovács et al. (1992), Cox (1995) and Bono et al. (1996) all indicate that the RRd variables in the OoII clusters M15 and M68 are more massive than those in the OoI clusters M3 and IC 4499. Most of their models indicate that the difference between the two is approximately $`0.1M_{}`$. Three of these clusters are included in Table 4 which indicates that the RRc stars in M15 and M68 are $`0.13M_{}`$ more massive than the ones in M3. Another point to note about M68 and M15 is that the masses derived for their RRc stars from $`\varphi _{31}`$ are considerably higher than those for $`\omega `$ Cen and M55. If this is correct, then the data of Table 4 suggest that the double-mode phenomenon may occur only in higher mass stars. Recent studies of M55 and $`\omega `$ Cen have not revealed any RRd stars. Furthermore, Nemec, Nemec & Norris (1986) analysed Martin’s (1938) published observations of the $`\omega `$ Cen RR Lyrae variables and found no RRd stars. Freyhammer, Andersen & Petersen (1998, 2000) have detected multi-mode pulsation in a few variables in $`\omega `$ Cen, but they are SX Phe, not RR Lyrae variables.

Another feature of the sequence of masses listed in Table 4 is the discontinuity at the interface between the two Oosterhoff groups. Although there is an increase of mass with luminosity among the clusters in each group, there is a sudden drop in mass at the transition. The OoII RRc stars in $`\omega `$ Cen and M55 have lower masses and higher luminosities than the OoI RRc stars in $`\omega `$ Cen and M3. This is exactly what is predicted by LDZ. The OoII RR Lyrae variables are evolved stars from the blue horizontal branch so that when they cross the instability strip, they have lower masses and higher luminosities than the OoI variables.

### 3.3 The Masses of the RRab stars

We now use the period-density relation to compare the masses of the RRab stars of the two Oosterhoff groups in $`\omega `$ Cen. The period-density relation can be expressed as a relationship among pulsation period, luminosity, mass and surface effective temperature. From models based on OPAL opacities, Cox (1995) derived a relation for fundamental mode RR Lyrae pulsators with composition comparable to the $`\omega `$ Cen variables (Z=$`0.0003`$):

$`\mathrm{log}P=11.519+0.829\mathrm{log}L/L_{}0.647\mathrm{log}M/M_{}3.479\mathrm{log}T_e`$ (7)
Our procedure is to select pairs of stars for which the amplitude is the same (within $`0.02`$ mag), one from each Oosterhoff group according to the P-A diagram of Fig. 10, and then use the period-density relation to calculate the difference in mass. From equation (7), we derive:

$`0.647\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{log}M/M_{}=0.332\mathrm{\Delta }m_{bol}\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{log}P3.479\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{log}T_e`$ (8)
where $`m_{bol}`$ refers to the apparent bolometric magnitude. We limit our selections to pairs of stars in the same field so that the luminosity difference obtained from the observations is reliable. Otherwise the shifts in zero point between the different fields would introduce large uncertainties into the results.

In order to apply equation (8), we need to know the temperature differences, but the temperatures of the stars are not known. Our approach therefore is to evaluate $`\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{log}M/M_{}`$ for three different assumed values of $`\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{log}T_e`$, selected in the following manner. We choose our first value $`\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{log}T_e=0.000`$ because B97 showed that the correlation between amplitude and effective temperature of fundamental mode pulsators does not have a strong dependence on mass or luminosity. Their study was based on nonlinear pulsation models with helium content $`Y=0.24`$. On this basis, one would expect a one-to-one correspondence between amplitude and temperature. Our second value for $`\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{log}T_e`$ is $`0.004`$. We choose this value because Sandage (1993) presented evidence that OoII RRab stars are cooler than those of OoI. For RRab stars at the blue fundamental edge of the instability strip, he derived the relationship: $`\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{log}T_e=0.012\mathrm{\Delta }[Fe/H]`$. Among the star pairs we have selected, the OoII RRab stars are more metal poor by an average amount $`0.34`$. Therefore, based on Sandage’s relationship, we derive a mean $`\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{log}T_e=0.004`$. We choose our third value $`0.005`$ because our analysis of the RRc stars in $`\omega `$ Cen also indicates that the OoII RR Lyrae variables are cooler. According to the data of Table 4, the mean temperature of the OoII RRc stars in $`\omega `$ Cen is lower by $`\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{log}T_e=0.005`$ than that of the OoI stars. For equation (8), we also need to know the bolometric corrections (BC) in order to compute $`m_{bol}`$. Jurcsik (1998b) derived equations for relating BC to \[Fe/H\] and temperature and from her equations, we derive the following relationship:

$`\mathrm{\Delta }BC=1.56115\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{log}T_e+0.0445\mathrm{\Delta }[Fe/H].`$ (9)
We use equation (9) to calculate $`\mathrm{\Delta }BC`$ for each assumed value of $`\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{log}T_e`$.

Our selected pairs of stars (seven in all) are listed in Table 5. Also listed are the observed differences $`\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{log}P`$, $`\mathrm{\Delta }V`$, $`\mathrm{\Delta }A_V`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }[Fe/H]`$ and the $`\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{log}M`$ values calculated from equation (8) according to the different assumptions for $`\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{log}T_e`$. On the last line, the mean value for each quantity is listed. For each assumed temperature difference, the mean mass of the OoII stars is lower than the mean for the OoI stars, just as we found for the RRc stars. This is further support for the LDZ hypothesis. If the LDZ hypothesis is correct, one would also expect to find that the periods of OoII RR Lyrae stars increase. This is exactly what has been found in a recent study of the period changes of RRab stars in $`\omega `$ Cen by Jurcsik (2000) and Jurcsik et al. (2000).

Although our analysis of the RRab star pairs indicates that, in general masses are lower and luminosities are higher for the OoII stars, there are individual cases that are exceptions. For example, the OoII star #147 has a higher mass than the OoI star #154 for all of our assumed values of $`\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{log}Te`$. This is because #147 is so much brighter than #154 that its mass must also be larger to account for its observed period. Another anomalous star is #113. For six of the seven pairs listed in Table 5, the OoII star is brighter, but the OoI star #113 is brighter than its OoII counterpart. In fact, it is brighter than any of the other stars that lie near our adopted OoI P-A relation. An examination of Fig. 1 shows that its light curve does not have the characteristic bump and dip preceding the rise to maximum light. Theoretical light curves published by B97 illustrate that, at constant mass and temperature, models with higher luminosity have a less pronounced bump. This is exactly what we observe in the light curve of #113. It may have a mass and temperature similar to the other OoI stars, but it is more luminous. With high quality light curves based on CCD observations, it is becoming possible to distinguish between different models.

## 4 The Origin of the Dichotomy

Our analysis of the RR Lyrae stars in $`\omega `$ Cen has confirmed that the cluster contains variables with the properties of both Oosterhoff groups. We have also presented evidence to illustrate that both the RRc and RRab OoII variables belong to a more evolved population than the OoI variables. On the average, the OoII variables are less massive, more luminous stars that have spent their ZAHB phase on the blue side of the instability strip. The same conclusion can be reached from a comparison of the first overtone pulsators in the OoI cluster M3 and the OoII cluster M55. One explanation for this advanced evolutionary state is that their ZAHB masses are low because of a high mass-loss rate at the tip of the red giant branch. Alternatively, it could be that the masses of their main sequence progenitors are lower and consequently, the OoII variables are older. This is the conclusion that Lee & Carney (1999b) reached in their investigation of M2 and M3, two clusters that have similar metallicities, but different Oosterhoff types. By comparing the difference in color between the base of the giant branch and the main sequence turnoff, they estimated that the OoII cluster M2 is about 2 Gyr older than the OoI cluster M3. It is possible that the Oosterhoff dichotomy in $`\omega `$ Cen is also due to an age difference. Recent studies of $`\omega `$ Cen by Hilker & Richtler (1999) and Hughes & Wallerstein (2000) present evidence for a range in age of at least 3 Gyr. Both groups performed Strömgren photometry (Hilker & Richtler observed red giants and Hughes & Wallerstein observed stars near the main sequence turnoff) and both found that the more metal rich stars are at least 3 Gyr younger. The data listed in Tables 4 and 5 of the present paper indicate that the OoI RR Lyrae variables in $`\omega `$ Cen are more metal rich than the OoII variables. Thus if the age-metallicity correlation can be extended to HB stars, a difference in age may be the cause of the Oosterhoff dichotomy in $`\omega `$ Cen. An examination of Dorman’s (1992) oxygen-enhanced models for HB stars with \[Fe/H\]=$`1.48`$ and $`1.66`$ (metallicities comparable to those observed in the $`\omega `$ Cen RR Lyraes) shows that at $`\mathrm{log}T_e=3.86`$ (a temperature appropriate for the instability strip), there are models with \[Fe/H\] = $`1.66`$ and $`\mathrm{log}L=1.74`$ that are less massive than models with \[Fe/H\]=-1.48. However, the mass difference between the two is less than $`0.01M_{}`$. The mass differences listed in Tables 4 and 5 are greater. Clearly, there is still more work to be done before we can fully understand the evolution of RR Lyrae variables and the Oosterhoff dichotomy.

We would like to thank Giuseppe Bono, Bruce Carney, Marcio Catelan, Johanna Jurcsik, Andy Layden, Geza Kovács, Joergen Petersen, Robert Rood, Horace Smith and Allen Sweigert for discussing this work during the course of the investigation. Support for this work from the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada is gratefully acknowledged.


text:
# Universality of 𝑆-matrix correlations for deterministic plus random Hamiltonians

## I Introduction

The energy levels and/or the scattering matrices of a variety of physical systems with randomness (e.g., complex nuclei, disordered conductors, classically chaotic systems, etc.) exhibit universal behavior: the statistical properties of the observables can be separated into the universal parts and the non-universal parts specific to individual systems. There have been increasing evidences that the universal parts depend only on the fundamental symmetries of the underlying Hamiltonian and are well described by a random matrix ensemble with a Gaussian distribution (see Ref.  for a review). According to the fundamental symmetries, there are three classical random matrix ensembles: Systems with broken time-reversal symmetry are described by the unitary ensemble and time-reversal invariant systems by either the symplectic or the orthogonal ensemble depending on whether spin-orbit coupling is present or not . In spite of their many successful applications, random matrix models lack firm foundation. Especially, the Gaussian form of the probability distribution is used for mathematical convenience and is not motivated by physical principles. It is therefore necessary and important to investigate whether statistical properties are identical for more general forms of the probability distribution consistent with fundamental symmetries.

There has been several work along this direction. Hackenbroich and Weidenmüller  considered a non-Gaussian and unitary invariant probability distribution: $`P(H)\mathrm{exp}\left[N\text{tr}V(H)\right]`$, where $`N`$ is the dimension of the Hamiltonian matrix $`H`$ and $`V(H)`$ is independent of $`N`$ and arbitrary provided it confines the spectrum to some finite interval and generates a smooth mean level density, in the limit $`N\mathrm{}`$. For each of the three symmetry classes, using Efetov’s supersymmetry formalism, they showed that both energy level correlation functions and correlation functions of $`S`$-matrix elements are independent of $`P(H)`$ and hence universal if the arguments of the correlators are scaled correctly.

For realistic situations, it is likely that the Hamiltonian is not completely random but contains some regular parts. If the total Hamiltonian $`H=H_0+\phi `$ where $`H_0`$ is a deterministic part and $`\phi `$ is a random one, the probability distribution takes a unitary non-invariant form:

$$P(H)\mathrm{exp}\left[N\text{tr}V(\phi )\right]=\mathrm{exp}\left[N\text{tr}V(HH_0)\right].$$
(1)
For the unitary ensemble, Brézin et al.  discussed the universality of 2-point energy level correlations for $`V(\phi )=\phi ^2/2+g\phi ^4`$. General n-point energy level correlation functions were shown to be universal by Brézin and Hikami  for $`V(\phi )\phi ^2`$. (The other type of unitary non-invariant distrubution $`P(H)\mathrm{exp}\left\{N\text{tr}\left[V(H)HH_0\right]\right\}`$ was also considered by Zinn-Justin .)

Recently, we  numerically found the same universality of the $`S`$-matrix correlations for the distribution function Eq. (1) with $`V(\phi )\phi ^2`$ for the orthogonal ensemble, i.e., with the average $`S`$-matrix $`\overline{S}`$ been taken as the parameters, the correlations are independent of $`H_0`$ while $`\overline{S}`$ depends on $`H_0`$. Our purpose of the present article is to analytically show this universality in any of the three symmetry classes. More precisely, we show

$$\overline{\underset{i=1}{\overset{m}{}}\underset{j=1}{\overset{n}{}}\left[S_{a_ib_i}\left(E\frac{\omega }{2}\right)\right]^{k_i}\left[S_{c_jd_j}^{}\left(E+\frac{\omega }{2}\right)\right]^{l_j}}=f_\beta \mathbf{(}\omega \rho (E),\overline{S}(E)\mathbf{)},$$
(2)
where $`m`$, $`n`$, $`k_i`$, $`l_j`$ are non negative integers, the bar denotes ensemble average. The universal functions $`f_\beta `$ depend on the symmetry classes ($`\beta =1,2`$, and 4 for orthogonal, unitary, and symplectic classes) and are independent of $`H_0`$, except for the indices $`\{a_i,b_i,k_i,c_j,d_j,l_j\}`$, while the average local level density $`\rho `$ and the average $`S`$-matrix $`\overline{S}`$ depend on $`H_0`$.

## II The model

Following the approach of Ref. , we write the scattering matrix $`S(E)`$ as

$$S_{ab}(E)=\delta _{ab}2i\pi \underset{\mu ,\nu }{}W_{}^{}{}_{a\mu }{}^{}\left[D(E)^1\right]_{\mu \nu }W_{\nu b},$$
(4)
in which

$$D(E)=E+i0^+H+i\pi WW^{},$$
(5)
$`E`$ is the energy, $`0^+`$ is positive infinitesimal, $`H`$ represents the projection of the full Hamiltonian onto the interaction region, and $`W`$ describes the coupling between the eigenstates of the interaction region and the scattering states in the free-propagation region. The indices $`a`$, $`b`$ refer to the physical scattering channels, and $`\mu `$, $`\nu `$ refer to the complete orthonormal states characterizing the interaction region.

We assume that $`N\times N`$ matrix $`H`$ can be written as

$$H=H_0+\phi ,$$
(6)
where $`H_0`$ is a given, nonrandom, Hermitian matrix, and $`\phi `$ is a member of the Gaussian ensemble. The symmetry property of $`H_0`$ is the same as $`\phi `$. The independent elements of the matrix $`\phi `$ are uncorrelated random variables with a Gaussian probability distribution centered at zero. The second moments for the unitary ensemble are given by

$`\overline{\phi _{\mu \nu }\phi _{\mu ^{}\nu ^{}}}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\lambda ^2}{N}}\delta _{\mu \nu ^{}}\delta _{\nu \mu ^{}}.`$ (7)
(See Ref.  for the orthogonal and the symplectic cases.) Here, $`\lambda `$ is a strength parameter.

## III Derivation

For definiteness, we show the derivation for the unitary ensemble and $`m,n2`$ in Eq. (2). The generalization to the other symmetry classes and/or higher values of $`m`$ and $`n`$ is straightforward and commented upon in Sec. IV. The derivation is based on the use of Efetov’s supersymmetry method . We take the notation from Ref.  and use the  block notation for the matrix representation in which 1 and 2 refer to the retarded and advanced block, respectively.

Consider the following generating function:

$$Z(J)=\frac{det\left[D_p(E_p)+2\pi WJ_p(F)W^{}\right]}{det\left[D_p(E_p)2\pi WJ_p(B)W^{}\right]},$$
(8)
where $`D_p(E_p)=\text{diag}[D(E_1),D^{}(E_2)]`$, $`J_p(F)=\text{diag}[J_1(F),J_2(F)]`$, and $`J_p(B)=\text{diag}[J_1(B),J_2(B)]`$. The scattering matrix can be generated from $`Z(J)`$ as follows:

$$S_p(E_p)_{ab}=\delta _{ab}i\frac{Z(J)}{J_p(B)_{ba}}|_{J=0}L=\delta _{ab}i\frac{Z(J)}{J_p(F)_{ba}}|_{J=0}L,$$
(9)
where $`S_p(E_p)=\text{diag}[S(E_1),S^{}(E_2)]`$ and $`L=\text{diag}(1,1)`$. Using standard procedure , we can represent the average of $`Z(J)`$ as an integral over a $`4\times 4`$ graded matrix field $`\sigma `$:

$$\overline{Z}(J)=d[\sigma ]\mathrm{exp}\left\{(\sigma )\right\},$$
(11)
where

$$(\sigma )=\frac{N}{2\lambda ^2}\text{trg}\left(\sigma ^2\right)\text{trg}\mathrm{ln}\left[𝒟(\sigma )\frac{\omega ^{}}{2}L+i\pi WW^{}L2\pi L_gWJ_p(g)W^{}\right].$$
(12)
Here, trg denotes the graded trace, $`𝒟(\sigma )=E\sigma H_0`$, $`\omega ^{}=\omega i0^+`$, $`J_p(g)=\text{diag}[J_1(B),J_1(F),J_2(B),J_2(F)]`$, and $`L_g=\text{diag}(1,1,1,1)`$. We have defined $`E=\left(E_1+E_2\right)/2`$ and $`\omega =E_2E_1`$.

In the limit $`N\mathrm{}`$, this integral can be done with the use of the saddle-point approximation. We are interested in correlations involving energy differences $`\omega `$ of the order of the mean level spacing $`O(N^1)`$. Hence, we expand $`(\sigma )`$ in powers of $`\omega `$:

$`(\sigma )`$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{N}{2\lambda ^2}}\text{trg}\left(\sigma ^2\right)\text{trg}\mathrm{ln}\left[𝒟(\sigma )\right]\text{trg}\mathrm{ln}\left[1+i\pi 𝒟(\sigma )^1WW^{}L\right]`$ (14)
$`\text{trg}\mathrm{ln}\left\{12\pi \left[𝒟(\sigma )+i\pi WW^{}L\right]^1L_gWJ_p(g)W^{}\right\}+{\displaystyle \frac{\omega ^{}}{2}}\text{trg}\left[𝒟(\sigma )^1L\right].`$
It should be noted such an expansion is not possible for $`WW^{}`$ because $`W^{}WO(1)`$. Of the five terms in expression (14) the last three terms are $`O(1)`$. The first two terms are $`O(N)`$ and determine the saddle-point $`\sigma ^{sp}`$. To derive the saddle-point equation we write $`H_0`$ and $`\sigma ^{sp}`$ in the forms $`H_0=U^1\text{diag}(ϵ_1,\mathrm{},ϵ_N)U`$ and $`\sigma ^{sp}=T^1\sigma _D^{sp}T`$, where $`\sigma _D^{sp}`$ is diagonal and $`T`$ has the form

$$T=\left(\begin{array}{cc}\left(1+t_{12}t_{21}\right)^{1/2}& it_{12}\\ it_{21}& \left(1+t_{21}t_{12}\right)^{1/2}\end{array}\right).$$
(15)
The saddle-point equation reads

$$\sigma _D^{sp}=\frac{\lambda ^2}{N}\underset{\mu =1}{\overset{N}{}}\frac{1}{E\sigma _D^{sp}ϵ_\mu }.$$
(16)
For ordinary variables (rather than matrices), Eq. (16) has the $`N+1`$ solutions. The $`N1`$ of which are real, and the remaining two may have non-zero imaginary parts according to the values of $`E`$. Taking the two complex solutions ($`r\pm i\mathrm{\Delta }`$) , we obtain $`\sigma _D^{sp}=ri\mathrm{\Delta }L`$. The explicit expressions of $`r`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ are not available because Eq. (16) becomes in general an $`(N+1)`$-th polynomial. Several references discussed the properties of Eq. (16) (see, e.g., ). Hereafter we consider the case where $`\mathrm{\Delta }O(1)`$. From the relation between $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ and the average level density $`\rho `$ (Eq. (20)), this means $`E`$ lies far away from the edge of the spectrum. Substituting $`\sigma ^{sp}`$ for $`\sigma `$ in Eq. (14), we find

$`(\sigma ^{sp})`$ $``$ $`\text{trg}\mathrm{ln}\left[1+i\pi 𝒟(\sigma ^{sp})^1WW^{}L\right]+{\displaystyle \frac{\omega ^{}}{2}}\text{trg}\left[𝒟(\sigma ^{sp})^1L\right]`$ (18)
$`\text{trg}\mathrm{ln}\left\{12\pi W^{}\left[𝒟(\sigma ^{sp})+i\pi WW^{}L\right]^1WL_gJ_p(g)\right\}.`$
The one-point functions $`\rho (E)`$ and $`\overline{S}(E)`$ are evaluated at the saddle-point. We thus have

$$\rho (E)=\frac{N\mathrm{\Delta }}{\pi \lambda ^2}$$
(20)
and

$$\overline{S}_p(E)=12i\pi W^{}\left[𝒟(\sigma _D^{sp})+i\pi WW^{}L\right]^1WL.$$
(21)
Using these one-point functions $`\rho (E)`$ and $`\overline{S}(E)`$ we can write each term of Eq. (18) as follows:

$$\text{trg}\mathrm{ln}\left[1+i\pi 𝒟(\sigma ^{sp})^1WW^{}L\right]=\text{trg}\mathrm{ln}\left\{1\left[\overline{S}_p(E)1\right]LM\right\},$$
(23)
$$\frac{\omega ^{}}{2}\text{trg}\left[𝒟(\sigma ^{sp})^1L\right]=2i\pi \omega ^{}\rho (E)\text{trg}\left(t_{12}t_{21}\right),$$
(24)
and

$$2\pi W^{}\left[𝒟(\sigma ^{sp})+i\pi WW^{}L\right]^1W=i\left\{T^1L\left[\overline{S}_p(E)1\right]^1TT^1MT\right\}^1.$$
(25)
Here,

$$M=\left(\begin{array}{cc}t_{12}t_{21}& it_{12}\left(1+t_{21}t_{12}\right)^{1/2}\\ it_{21}\left(1+t_{12}t_{21}\right)^{1/2}& t_{21}t_{12}\end{array}\right)$$
(26)
and we used the property $`TLT^1=L+2M`$. More explicitly, Eqs. (23) and (25) can be expressed with the use of $`t_{12}`$ and $`t_{21}`$ as follows:

R.H.S. of Eq. (23) $`=`$ $`\text{trg}\mathrm{ln}\left(1+𝒯_{12}t_{12}t_{21}\right)`$ (28)
$`=`$ $`\text{trg}\mathrm{ln}\left(1+𝒯_{21}t_{12}t_{21}\right)`$ (29)
and

$$\text{R.H.S. of Eq. (}\text{25}\text{)}=i\left(\begin{array}{cc}\overline{S}(E)\left(1+𝒯_{21}t_{12}t_{21}\right)^11& it_{12}\left(1+t_{21}t_{12}\right)^{1/2}\left(𝒯_{12}^{}{}_{}{}^{1}+t_{21}t_{12}\right)^1\\ it_{21}\left(1+t_{12}t_{21}\right)^{1/2}\left(𝒯_{21}^{}{}_{}{}^{1}+t_{12}t_{21}\right)^1& 1\overline{S^{}}(E)\left(1+𝒯_{12}t_{21}t_{12}\right)^1\end{array}\right),$$
(30)
where $`𝒯_{12}=1\overline{S}(E)\overline{S^{}}(E)`$ and $`𝒯_{21}=1\overline{S^{}}(E)\overline{S}(E)`$ . (The derivation is given in Appendix.) Thus we find that all the dependence of Eq. (18) on $`W`$ and $`H_0`$ is completely absorbed in $`\rho (E)`$ and $`\overline{S}(E)`$. Equations (23), (24), and (25) show universality. The explicit forms of correlation functions $`f_\beta `$ are identical with those for the Gaussian ensemble and are found in appropriate references (see, e.g., ).

## IV Summary

For the sake of simplicity, we presented the derivation for only the unitary ensemble. In either of the orthogonal and the symplectic ensemble, the internal structures of $`t_{12}`$ and $`t_{21}`$ differ from the unitary case. However, our derivaton is completely independent of such structures and applies equally to the orthogonal and the symplectic ensembles. Taking the generating function:

$$Z(J)=\underset{q=1}{\overset{\text{max}\{m,n\}}{}}\frac{det\left[D_p(E_p)+WJ_p^q(F)W^{}\right]}{det\left[D_p(E_p)WJ_p^q(B)W^{}\right]},$$
(31)
we can show Eq. (2) for $`m>2`$ or $`n>2`$ along exactly parallel lines.

In summary, we have shown that the local universality in the bulk scaling limit still holds for the $`S`$-matrix correlation functions even though unitary invariance is broken by the addition of a deterministic matrix to the ensemble. The starting random matrix model contains parameters $`W`$ and $`H_0`$ which are specific to individual systems. After ensemble averaging, these original parameters are completely absorbed into much fewer parameters $`\overline{S}(E)`$ and $`\rho (E)`$. Thus the $`S`$-matrix correlaton functions of the type Eq. (2) have universal forms which are independent of $`H_0`$ but for $`\overline{S}(E)`$ and $`\rho (E)`$ and are determined only by the symmetry of the ensemble. This holds for all the three symmetry classes (orthogonal, unitary, and symplectic). The derivation can be similarly applied to the spectral correlation functions. Thus we have extended the previous results by Brézin and Hikami  to the orthogonal and the symplectic ensembles though only two-point functions are considered.

The present results were derived under the restrictions that the correlation functions contain only two values of energy, $`E_1`$ and $`E_2`$, and that $`V(\phi )`$ has a Gaussian form. It is a natural conjecture that the universality of the $`S`$-matrix correlation functions holds even if these two restrictions are removed. The increase of the number of energy arguments makes the structure of $`\sigma _D^{sp}`$ more complicated. With this point taken properly into account, the similar derivation is probable. The extension to the general form of $`V(\phi )`$ seems less trivial because we are no longer able to use a Hubbard-Stratonovich transformation in order to introduce a graded matrix $`\sigma `$. The simlar procedure used in Ref.  may be incorporated into present derivation.

## Acknowledgments

Stimulating discussions with K. Nohara and K. Takahashi are appreciated with thanks.

## Derivation of Eqs. (29) and (30)

To derive Eqs. (29) and (30), we use the fact that for any analytic function $`F`$, we have $`t_{12}F(t_{21}t_{12})=F(t_{12}t_{21})t_{12}`$. Using the identity

$$\text{trg}\mathrm{ln}\left(\begin{array}{cc}a& b\\ c& d\end{array}\right)=\text{trg}\mathrm{ln}\left(abd^1c\right)+\text{trg}\mathrm{ln}\left(d\right),$$
(32)
we obtain Eq. (29). For the abbreviation $`Y\left\{T^1L\left[\overline{S}_p(E)1\right]^1TT^1MT\right\}^1`$, using the property $`T^1=LTL`$, we get the following equation

$$Y=\left(\begin{array}{cc}\left[\overline{S}(E)1\right]^1+t_{12}t_{21}A& it_{12}\left(1+t_{21}t_{12}\right)^{1/2}A\\ it_{21}\left(1+t_{12}t_{21}\right)^{1/2}A& \left[\overline{S^{}}(E)1\right]^1t_{21}t_{12}A\end{array}\right)^1,$$
(33)
where $`A=\left[\overline{S}(E)1\right]^1+\left[\overline{S^{}}(E)1\right]^1+1`$. With the use of the formula

$$\left(\begin{array}{cc}a& b\\ c& d\end{array}\right)^1=\left(\begin{array}{cc}\left(abd^1c\right)^1& a^1b\left(dca^1b\right)^1\\ d^1c\left(abd^1c\right)^1& \left(dca^1b\right)^1\end{array}\right),$$
(34)
the  block of $`Y`$ can be written as follows

$$Y_{11}=A^1\left\{\left[\overline{S^{}}(E)1\right]^1+t_{12}t_{21}A\right\}\left\{\left[\overline{S}(E)1\right]^1A^1\left[\overline{S^{}}(E)1\right]^1t_{12}t_{21}\right\}^1.$$
(35)
Using the property

$`A`$ $`=`$ $`\left[\overline{S^{}}(E)1\right]^1\left[\overline{S^{}}(E)\overline{S}(E)1\right]\left[\overline{S}(E)1\right]^1`$ (36)
$`=`$ $`\left[\overline{S}(E)1\right]^1\left[\overline{S}(E)\overline{S^{}}(E)1\right]\left[\overline{S^{}}(E)1\right]^1,`$ (37)
we obtain the  block of Eq. (30). Similarly the  block of $`Y`$ can be written as follows

$$Y_{21}=it_{21}\left(1+t_{12}t_{21}\right)^{1/2}\left\{\left[\overline{S^{}}(E)1\right]^1+t_{12}t_{21}A\right\}^1AY_{11}.$$
(38)
Substituting Eq. (35) for $`Y_{11}`$ in Eq. (38), we obtain the  block of Eq. (30). The other blocks are obtained along exactly parallel lines.