text:
# SUPERSYMMETRIC 𝑆𝑂(10) GUT MODELS WITH YUKAWA UNIFICATION AND A POSITIVE 𝜇 TERM

## Abstract

Supersymmetric grand unified models based on $`SO(10)`$ gauge symmetry have many desireable features, including the unification of Yukawa couplings. Including $`D`$-term contributions to scalar masses arising from the breakdown of $`SO(10)`$, Yukawa coupling unification only to 30% can be achieved in models with a positive superpotential Higgs mass. The superparticle mass spectrum is highly constrained, and yields relatively light top squarks and charginos. Surprisingly, the pattern of GUT scale soft SUSY breaking masses are close to those found in the context of inverted hierarchy models. Our analysis supports the idea that the low energy MSSM parameter space is an approximate $`SO(10)`$ inspired fixed point.

preprint:  FSU-HEP-010701

Supersymmetric grand unified theories (SUSYGUTS) based on the gauge group $`SO(10)`$ are especially attractive. Not only do they unify the three forces of the Standard Model (SM), but they unify the matter content of each generation into a single 16 dimensional irreducible representation of $`SO(10)`$: $`\widehat{\psi }(\mathrm{𝟏𝟔})`$. The $`\widehat{\psi }(\mathrm{𝟏𝟔})`$ includes not only the matter superfields of the minimal supersymmetric standard model (MSSM), but also a gauge singlet superfield $`\widehat{N}^c`$ which includes a right handed neutrino. The gauge singlet superpotential mass term $`M_N`$ can be of order $`M_{GUT}`$, and leads to sub-eV scale masses for left handed neutrinos (in accord with SuperK results on atmospheric neutrino oscillations), while the right handed neutrinos decouple via the well-known see-saw mechanism. In the simplest models, the two Higgs doublet superfields of the MSSM reside in a single ten dimensional representation $`\widehat{\varphi }(\mathrm{𝟏𝟎})`$. Then $`SO(10)`$ SUSYGUT models contain a superpotential interaction term

$$\widehat{f}f\widehat{\psi }\widehat{\psi }\varphi +\mathrm{}$$
(1)
where $`f`$ is the Yukawa coupling which leads to masses for quarks and leptons (at this stage we neglect intergenerational mixing effects). Thus, the Yukawa couplings of each generation are assumed to be unified above the GUT scale. More sophisticated treatments of the Yukawa matrices can allow for predictions of all SM fermion masses and mixing angles in terms of just a few parameters. Here we will focus only on third generation Yukawa couplings, since they will be large, and can have a substantial impact on the spectrum of superpartners.

In much the same way that the three gauge couplings of the MSSM can be extrapolated from their weak scales values to their GUT scale values using renormalization group (RG) evolution, so too can the Yukawa couplings be evolved from the weak to the GUT scale to test models with Yukawa coupling unification. In the bottom-up approach used in ISAJET v7.58, we begin with the weak scale values of $`m_b`$, $`m_t`$ and $`m_\tau `$ in the $`\overline{DR}`$ regularization scheme: $`m_\tau (M_Z)=1.7463`$ GeV, $`m_b(M_Z)=2.92`$ GeV, and $`m_t(m_t)=163.4`$ GeV. We calculate the corresponding Yukawa couplings, and evolve both Yukawa and gauge couplings to higher energies using two-loop RG equations (RGEs). Once $`M_{GUT}`$ is determined (by the point at which the $`SU(2)`$ and $`U(1)`$ gauge couplings meet), we evolve gauge couplings, Yukawa couplings and soft SUSY breaking (SSB) mass terms to the weak scale $`M_{weak}`$, where electroweak symmetry is broken radiatively (REWSB), and where the entire SUSY particle mass spectrum can be calculated. At this stage, the Yukawa couplings can be updated to include SM and MSSM loop corrections, and the RGE process is iterated until a convergent spectrum of SUSY particle masses is obtained. In this way, the GUT scale values of the Yukawa couplings depend on the SUSY particle mass spectrum.

In previous reports, unification of Yukawa couplings was investigated within the context of $`SO(10)`$ SUSYGUT models. It is well known that in the mSUGRA model, with universal SSB masses at the GUT scale, a high degree of Yukawa coupling unification only occurs for negative values of the superpotential Higgs mass term $`\mu `$, and for values of the ratio of Higgs field vevs $`\mathrm{tan}\beta \frac{v_u}{v_d}50`$. For such high values of $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$, the scalar potential no longer has the appropriate form at the weak scale to accommodate REWSB. Generally, the SSB down Higgs mass squared $`m_{H_d}^2`$ gets driven to negative values before the up Higgs mass squared $`m_{H_u}^2`$. However, even if scalar masses are universal above the GUT scale, they will receive $`D`$-term mass contributions at the GUT scale arising from the breakdown of $`SO(10)`$ gauge symmetry. Thus, scalar masses are shifted by an amount

$`m_Q^2`$ $`=`$ $`m_E^2=m_U^2=m_{16}^2+M_D^2`$
$`m_D^2`$ $`=`$ $`m_L^2=m_{16}^23M_D^2`$
$`m_N^2`$ $`=`$ $`m_{16}^2+5M_D^2`$
$`m_{H_{u,d}}^2`$ $`=`$ $`m_{10}^22M_D^2`$
where $`M_D^2`$ parametrizes our ignorance of the exact breakdown mechanism for $`SO(10)`$, and can have either positive or negative values of order $`M_{weak}^2`$. Thus, the model is characterized by the following free parameters:

$$m_{16},m_{10},M_D^2,m_{1/2},A_0,\mathrm{tan}\beta \mathrm{and}sign(\mu ).$$
(2)
The value of $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$ will be restricted by the requirement of Yukawa coupling unification to be close to $`50`$. In this model, for positive values of $`M_D^2`$, the GUT scale values of $`m_{H_u}^2`$ and $`m_{H_d}^2`$ are split, and $`m_{H_u}^2`$ gets a head start on running towards negative values. For a sufficiently large value of $`M_D^2`$, REWSB can be recovered, and viable supersymmetric models with a high degree of third generation Yukawa coupling can be generated.

In previous works, model parameter space was mapped out under the restriction of GUT scale Yukawa unification to 5%, and implications of the model for cosmological neutralino relic density, direct detection of dark matter, radiative decays $`bs\gamma `$ and collider searches were determined. A favorable relic density was obtained over much of model parameter space owing to $`s`$-channel neutralino pair annihilation via the very wide $`A`$ and $`H`$ Higgs poles at large $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$. However, the decay width for $`bs\gamma `$ was found to be very large and generally in disagreement with experimental limits unless one entered the decoupling regime, where model parameters began becoming unnatural. The large $`bs\gamma `$ branching fraction at large $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$ and $`\mu <0`$ is well known. However, for $`\mu >0`$, the $`bs\gamma `$ branching ratio can be in accord with experimental limits at large $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$.

In addition, the recent measurement by the E821 experiment of the muon anomalous magnetic moment $`a_\mu =(g2)/2`$ was found to deviate from SM predictions by $`2.6\sigma `$. If the deviation is interpreted in terms of supersymmetric models, then it disfavors models with $`\mu <0`$, assuming positive SSB gaugino masses. For these reasons, it seemed prudent to re-examine Yukawa unification for positive values of $`\mu `$, relaxing the ad-hoc $`5\%`$ criteria used in Refs. .

Our procedure is as follows. We generate random samples of model parameters

$`0`$ $`<`$ $`m_{16}<2000\mathrm{GeV},`$
$`0`$ $`<`$ $`m_{10}<2500\mathrm{GeV},`$
$`0`$ $`<`$ $`m_{1/2}<1000\mathrm{GeV},`$
$`1000^2`$ $`<`$ $`M_D^2<+1000^2\mathrm{GeV}^2,`$
$`45`$ $`<`$ $`\mathrm{tan}\beta <55,`$
$`5000`$ $`<`$ $`A_0<5000\mathrm{GeV}\mathrm{and}`$
$`\mu `$ $`>`$ $`0.`$
We then calculate the non-universal scalar masses according to formulae given above, and enter the parameters into the computer program ISASUGRA. ISASUGRA is a part of the ISAJET package which calculates an iterative solution to the 26 coupled RGEs of the MSSM. We required unification of third generation Yukawa couplings at the GUT scale to 45%. Our requirement of 45% unification is determined by defining the variables $`r_{b\tau }`$, $`r_{tb}`$ and $`r_{t\tau }`$, where for instance $`r_{b\tau }=max(f_b/f_\tau ,f_\tau /f_b)`$. We then require $`R=max(r_{b\tau },r_{tb},r_{t\tau })<1.45`$. We were able to find many solutions fulfilling the above criteria, with the best overall unification achieved for $`R=1.28`$, or Yukawa coupling unification to 28%. The top and tau Yukawa couplings could frequently unify to very high precision, while $`f_b/f_t`$ and $`f_b/f_\tau `$ could unify to $`0.70.8`$. The Yukawa couplings at the GUT scale, $`f_i(M_{GUT})`$, should differ from the unified Yukawa, $`f_{GUT}`$, due to threshold corrections, $`f_i(M_{GUT})=f_{GUT}(1+ϵ_i)`$. It would be difficult to explain our $`3040\%`$ deviation from perfect Yukawa unification by GUT scale threshold corrections in simple SUSYGUT models, where threshold corrections are expected of a few percent. More complicated models may be needed to explain the large threshold corrections needed for $`SO(10)`$ SUSYGUT models with $`\mu >0`$.

The parameter space regions with Yukawa coupling unification to 45% are shown in Fig. 1. Dots represent allowed solutions, while crosses denote solutions in violation of the experimental constraints $`m_{\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^\pm }<100`$ GeV, $`m_h<113`$ GeV and $`m_{\stackrel{~}{\tau }_1}<73`$ GeV. The values of $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$ generated were within the narrow range of $`\mathrm{tan}\beta 4648`$, typically somewhat lower than results assuming $`\mu <0`$. In frame a), we show models in the $`m_{16}vs.m_{1/2}`$ plane. The values of $`m_{16}`$ and $`m_{10}`$ typically lie beyond 1 TeV and cluster about the line $`m_{10}=\sqrt{2}m_{16}`$.

In frame b), we show solutions in the $`m_{16}vs.M_D`$ plane. In this case, we find $`M_D`$ restricted to values of $`0.4`$ to $`+0.4`$ TeV. Solutions can be obtained with $`M_D0`$, which brings us back to the mSUGRA model. This contrasts with the $`\mu <0`$ case where $`5\%`$ unification required strictly positive $`D`$-terms.

In frame c), we show the $`m_{16}vs.A_0`$ parameter plane. Surprisingly, the best Yukawa unified solutions are found only for large negative values of the $`A_0`$ parameter, and cluster about the line $`A_0=2m_{16}`$. Finally, in frame d), we show the $`m_{16}vs.m_{1/2}`$ plane, and find model solutions occuring for $`m_{1/2}0.10.9`$ TeV, with $`m_{16}`$ always greater than $`m_{1/2}`$.

It is particularly intriguing that model solutions with the best Yukawa coupling unification cluster about model parameters with

$$A_0^2=2m_{10}^2=4m_{16}^2.$$
(3)
These particular boundary conditions were found by Bagger et al. from a rather different approach, by looking analytically for fixed point behavior in third generation SSB scalar masses which would give rise to SUSY models with a radiatively driven inverted scalar mass hierarchy (RIMH). In these models, one may begin with GUT scale scalar masses beyond the TeV scale. RG evolution drives third generation and Higgs scalar masses towards zero, while scalars of the first two generations remain beyond the TeV range. In this way, multi-TeV first and second generation scalar masses act to suppress SUSY flavor and CP violating processes, while still fulfilling conditions of naturalness, which mainly apply to the sub-TeV third generation and Higgs scalar SSB masses. The RIMH mechanism is viable for $`SO(10)`$ based models with Yukawa coupling unification upon implementation of the above specific set of scalar mass boundary conditions. Our results here are obtained using a bottom-up approach, and indicate that for $`\mu >0`$, a high degree of Yukawa coupling unification can only be obtained using approximately the boundary conditions Eq. 3. The values of the Yukawa couplings obtained at the GUT scale are $`f_t:0.470.50`$, $`f_b:0.350.37`$ and $`f_\tau :0.470.52`$. Their magnitudes are only sufficient to generate a small scalar IMH. For Yukawa unified solutions with $`\mu <0`$, we found a weaker correlation for the soft masses around $`m_{10}=\sqrt{2}m_{16}`$ but we find no correlation for the trilinear parameter.

In Fig. 2, we show values of selected weak scale sparticle masses generated from the Yukawa unified model. In frame a), we show the $`m_Avs.m_h`$ plane of Higgs masses. The light scalar $`h`$ has a mass clustering about the region $`m_h115130`$ GeV, while $`m_A`$ ranges between $`100500`$ GeV, and is generally lower than $`m_A`$ values generated in models with lower values of $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$. Both the $`h`$ and $`A`$ (and also the heavy Higgs $`H`$) may be accessible to Higgs searches at the Fermilab Tevatron, and the low values of $`m_A`$ may give rise to measureable rates for $`B\mu ^+\mu ^{}`$ decay.

In frame b), we show the $`m_{\stackrel{~}{t}_1}vs.m_{\stackrel{~}{b}_1}`$ plane. We always find $`m_{\stackrel{~}{b}_1}>m_{\stackrel{~}{t}_1}`$, in contrast to Yukawa unified models with $`\mu <0`$. The value of $`m_{\stackrel{~}{t}_1}`$ ranges between $`100600`$ GeV for $`m_{\stackrel{~}{b}_1}<1`$ TeV.

Frame c) shows the $`m_{\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^\pm }vs.m_{\stackrel{~}{\tau }_1}`$ plane. We note that $`m_{\stackrel{~}{\tau }_1}m_{\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^\pm }`$, while $`m_{\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^\pm }400`$ GeV, and is likely accessible to a linear $`e^+e^{}`$ collider operating with $`\sqrt{s}800`$ GeV.

Finally, in frame d), we show the $`m_{\stackrel{~}{e}_R}vs.m_{\stackrel{~}{u}_R}`$ plane. In this case, $`m_{\stackrel{~}{e}_R}`$ and $`m_{\stackrel{~}{u}_R}`$ typically lie beyond 1 TeV. Such high mass values for first and second generation scalars can act to suppress many CP violating processes via a decoupling solution; they are generally not sufficiently heavy to suitably suppress the most dangerous flavor violating processes, such as $`K\overline{K}`$ mixing. A sample sparticle mass spectrum is shown in Table 1 for a Yukawa unified model with $`\mu >0`$. In this case, $`a_\mu =16.6\times 10^{10}`$, within the $`2\sigma `$ limit from E821; for our other models, $`a_\mu `$ typically varies around $`(10\pm 6)\times 10^{10}`$.

The cosmological relic density of neutralinos has been calculated in Ref.  for Yukawa unified models with $`\mu <0`$. Little should change by switching to $`\mu >0`$: the pseudoscalar $`A`$ and heavy scalar Higgs $`H`$ will still have large widths of order $`2050`$ GeV due to the large $`b`$ and $`\tau `$ Yukawa couplings, and will be light enough that $`\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^0\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^0`$ annihilation can take place efficiently through $`s`$-channel annihilation. In addition, the rates for direct detection of relic neutralinos will remain large, as in the $`\mu <0`$ case. The rate for $`bs\gamma `$ can be substantially different for $`\mu >0`$ compared to the $`\mu <0`$ result, and regions of parameter space certainly exist where this decay rate falls within experimental limits. Explicit results for the RIMH model with $`\mu >0`$ have been shown in Ref. . Finally, the value of $`a_\mu `$ has been calculated in Ref.  for Yukawa unified models with $`\mu <0`$ and for RIMH models with $`\mu >0`$. Regions of model space with an acceptable $`a_\mu `$ certainly exist for the $`\mu >0`$ case. Further results along these lines will be presented in a forthcoming publication.

Finally, we note that Yukawa unified models with $`\mu >0`$ have also been recently reported by Blazek et al.. These authors use a top-down approach and adopt independent values for $`m_{H_u}`$ and $`m_{H_d}`$ rather than $`D`$-term splitting amongst scalar masses. We verify that in this case also Yukawa unified solutions can be obtained, although in our approach these generally occur at the 35-55% level. The solutions typically have $`m_{H_u}\sqrt{2}m_{16}`$, with $`m_{H_u}<m_{H_d}`$, and $`A_02m_{16}`$.

It is well known that the three standard model gauge couplings approximately unify when extrapolated to the scale $`M_{GUT}2\times 10^{16}`$ GeV. This may be regarded as a coincidence, or as evidence for SUSYGUTs. Similarly, as a consequence of Yukawa unification, the clustering of the SSB parameters about an approximate $`SO(10)`$ inspired fixed point, if taken seriously, can be considered as evidence for a supersymmetric $`SO(10)`$ grand unified model.

###### Acknowledgements.

This research was supported in part by the U. S. Department of Energy under contract number DE-FG02-97ER41022. J.F. was supported by a spanish MEC-FPI grant and by the European Commission TMR contract HPRN-CT-2000-00148.


format: text

text:
# FAR-INFRARED CENSUS OF STARBURST-SEYFERT CONNECTION

## 1 INTRODUCTION

The traditional classification of Seyfert galaxies is Seyfert 1 versus Seyfert 2. This is a spectroscopic discrimination. Optical broad recombination lines are seen in Seyfert 1 galaxies, while they are not seen in Seyfert 2 galaxies. The so-called torus model claims that the two types are identical but are observed in different orientations. Around the broad-line region (BLR) and the central engine, there is a parsec-scale axisymmetric structure, i.e., a dusty torus. It is claimed that the torus hides the BLR along our line of sight to a Seyfert 2 galaxy (e.g., Antonucci 1993).

However, the torus model does not explain some of differences observed between Seyfert 1 and 2 galaxies. In particular, a circumnuclear starburst is found more frequently among Seyfert 2 galaxies. The starburst region and associated gas clouds might hide the BLR in some of Seyfert 2 galaxies (e.g., Heckman et al. 1989; Osterbrock 1993; Moorwood 1996). They actually tend to have dust lanes being irregular or running across the nucleus (Malkan, Gorjian, & Tam 1998).

The morphological type and interaction property are also different. Seyfert 2 galaxies tend to be objects of later types and more strongly interacting (e.g., Osterbrock 1993; De Robertis, Yee, & Hayhoe 1998; Dultzin-Hacyan et al. 1999). Such objects favor starbursts as explained later. The observed differences might be due to Seyfert 2 galaxies where the BLR is hidden by a starburst region.

Therefore, circumnuclear star formation is crucial to understanding Seyfert galaxies. It is of interest to classify a sample of Seyfert galaxies into those with and without starbursts, and compare their demographics, e.g., the number ratio of Seyfert 2 to Seyfert 1 galaxies, the morphological distribution, and so on. To the extent of our knowledge, an analysis of this kind has not been carried out.111 Just before the submission of our manuscript, we realized that a similar work had been done by Storchi-Bergmann et al. (2001; see also Cid Fernandes et al. 2001). With ultraviolet to optical spectra of nuclear regions, they had classified a sample of luminous Seyfert 2 galaxies, compared the morphological type and interaction property, and obtained results that are consistent with ours.

Since the spectral energy distribution is different between Seyfert galaxies with and without starbursts, their relative numbers in a certain sample are affected by its selection criterion. This selection bias is serious if Seyfert 1 galaxies are compared directly with Seyfert 2 galaxies, but it is not serious in the above approach.

The useful signature of a starburst is an enhancement of far-infrared (FIR) continuum emission, which is due to dust reradiation of ultraviolet photons from OB stars (e.g., Rodríguez Espinosa, Rudy, & Jones 1987; Wilson 1988; Mouri & Taniguchi 1992). When dominated by a starburst, the FIR spectrum provides constraints on the stellar population. For a large number of Seyfert galaxies, FIR flux densities at 60 and 100 µm were measured by the Infrared Astronomical Satellite (IRAS).

We accordingly study circumnuclear star formation in Seyfert galaxies. From the raw IRAS data, FIR flux densities are newly extracted for well-defined samples of Seyfert galaxies (§2). We also obtain FIR data of nuclear-starburst galaxies and construct a scheme to select starburst-dominant Seyfert galaxies (§3). Using this scheme, we classify the Seyfert galaxies, compare their observational properties, and discuss mechanisms to hide a BLR as well as a connection between starburst and Seyfert activities (§4).

Throughout this paper, we focus on Seyfert galaxies, i.e., galaxies with moderate-luminosity active galactic nuclei (AGNs). High- and low-luminosity AGNs, e.g., QSOs and LINERs, are not of our interest. They could have different connections with starburst activities. Seyfert galaxies have several subtypes. We put the subtypes 1.0 and 1.5 into Seyfert 1, and the subtypes 1.8, 1.9, and 2.0 into Seyfert 2. Seyfert $`1.8+1.9`$ galaxies are defined to exhibit faint broad lines. These intermediate types, which have an interesting character, are shown separately in the following diagrams.

## 2 SAMPLES AND DATA

Our Seyfert galaxies are those from optical spectroscopic surveys of two complete magnitude-limited samples of galaxies: the Palomar survey for the Revised Shapley-Ames (RSA) Catalog of Bright Galaxies and the Center for Astrophysics (CfA) redshift survey. Spectroscopic classifications were made with homogeneous data of the surveys. For reference, we also study Markarian (Mrk) starburst galaxies. These three samples of galaxies are listed along with observational data in Appendix A.

RSA galaxies serve as a fair representation of the local galaxy population. They lie in the northern sky and are equal to or brighter than 12.5 mag in the total $`B`$-band. Ho, Filippenko, & Sargent (1997a) conducted an extensive survey of the nuclei and found 52 Seyfert galaxies.

CfA galaxies are more distant and luminous than RSA galaxies. The selection criteria are $`\delta 0\mathrm{°}`$ and $`b40\mathrm{°}`$ or $`\delta 2\stackrel{}{\mathrm{.}}5`$ and $`b30\mathrm{°}`$, and $`m_B14.5`$. Here $`m_B`$ is the apparent blue magnitude on the Zwicky-$`B(0)`$ system for the entire galaxy. Huchra & Burg (1992) and Osterbrock & Martel (1993) defined a sample of 48 Seyfert galaxies.

Table 1 shows that CfA Seyfert 1 galaxies lie over larger distances than CfA Seyfert 2 galaxies. Seyfert 1 galaxies harbor bright nuclei, which contribute significantly to the total blue magnitudes (Osterbrock & Shaw 1988). To correct for this bias, our CfA Seyfert 1 sample is restricted to galaxies with $`m_B14.0`$. Their median distance is similar to that of CfA Seyfert 2 galaxies. We have accordingly excluded extreme objects such as the ultraluminous infrared galaxy Mrk 231. It should be noted that observational data of CfA Seyfert 1 galaxies with $`m_B>14.0`$ are nevertheless given in Appendix A.

The above bias is negligible exceptionally in the RSA Seyfert sample, where the nucleus is not luminous and overwhelmed by the host galaxy in the $`B`$-band (Maiolino & Rieke 1995). In addition, while the CfA sample misses galaxies with low-luminosity Seyfert nuclei (Huchra & Burg 1992), the RSA sample is complete to such objects (Maiolino & Rieke 1995; Ho et al. 1997a). Thus the RSA sample is more reliable than the CfA sample.

Nevertheless, the CfA sample is complete to galaxies with luminous Seyfert nuclei, which are relatively rare in the RSA sample. It is interesting to compare these two samples. The CfA sample also consists of well-studied objects. Only with this sample, statistical analyses of some observational quantities are possible.

Mrk galaxies are those exhibiting strong ultraviolet continua. Balzano (1983) selected 102 starburst galaxies. They do not form a complete sample but have been regarded as classical examples of galaxies with ongoing nuclear starbursts. We exclude faint objects and use 57 objects in the same magnitude range as CfA Seyfert galaxies, $`m_B14.5`$.

For the sample galaxies, FIR flux densities at 60 and 100 µm are extracted from the IRAS database using the processor SCANPI, which estimates total flux densities of an extended source (Appendix A). Since galaxies are often resolved by the IRAS detectors, point-source flux densities given in the current IRAS catalogs tend to be underestimates of the true FIR emission. As a measure of FIR properties of those galaxies, the total flux densities obtained here are preferable. Even for point sources, SCANPI provides improved sensitivity and accuracy. If we exclude galaxies where the IRAS data are not available, our final samples consist of 50 RSA Seyfert, 37 CfA Seyfert, and 56 Mrk starburst galaxies.

The observational data such as the Zwicky-$`B(0)`$ magnitude $`m_B`$ and the Hubble type index $`T`$ are compiled from the literature (Appendix A). Although the $`m_B`$ values are mostly photographic, they are sufficiently accurate for our purpose ($`\mathrm{error}\pm 0.3`$ mag; Huchra & Burg 1992) and have been measured for almost all the galaxies. The other data are also accurate. This is because we have excluded faint, distant, or extreme objects from the samples.

## 3 CLASSIFICATION SCHEME

Using Mrk starburst galaxies, we construct a scheme to classify Seyfert galaxies into those where the FIR emission is dominated by the AGN, starburst, or host galaxy. The last class is not relevant directly to the starburst-Seyfert connection but exists as a definite group. If host-dominant Seyfert galaxies were not separated from AGN- and starburst-dominant Seyfert galaxies, distinction between the latter two would be unclear. Since RSA, CfA, and Mrk galaxies have different distances (Table 1), we base our classification scheme on distance-independent quantities.

Starburst-dominant Seyfert galaxies are defined as those with $`F_{\mathrm{FIR}}/F_B>1`$. Here $`F_{\mathrm{FIR}}`$ is the FIR flux between 40 and 120 µm (Fullmer & Lonsdale 1989), and $`F_B`$ is the monochromatic flux at 0.43 µm (Lang 1980, p. 560). Their definitions are

$$F_{\mathrm{FIR}}=1.26\times 10^{11}\left(2.58S_{60}+S_{100}\right)\mathrm{erg}\mathrm{s}^1\mathrm{cm}^2,$$
(1)
and

$$F_B=2.16\times 10^5\mathrm{dex}\left(0.4m_B\right)\mathrm{erg}\mathrm{s}^1\mathrm{cm}^2,$$
(2)
where $`S_\lambda `$ is the flux density at $`\lambda `$ µm in units of Janskys. Thus $`F_{\mathrm{FIR}}/F_B`$ is equivalent to the FIR luminosity normalized by the total blue luminosity. Within and around a starburst region, there is a large amount of dust grains, which absorb ultraviolet photons from OB stars and reradiate them at FIR wavelengths. Mrk starburst galaxies actually exhibit $`F_{\mathrm{FIR}}/F_B1`$ as shown in Figure 1$`a`$. For a sample of more than 1000 inactive galaxies, Devereux & Hameed (1997) found $`F_{\mathrm{FIR}}/F_B1`$.

The observed $`F_B`$ value is dominated by stellar light of the host galaxy. Although star formation in the host galaxy depends on its morphological type (e.g., Kennicutt 1998), this dependence is not serious to the present criterion for starburst-dominant Seyfert galaxies. Our result for Mrk starburst galaxies and that of Devereux & Hameed (1997) for inactive galaxies are independent of the morphological type.

Host-dominant Seyfert galaxies are defined as those with $`S_{100}/S_{60}>3`$. This is a constraint on the dust temperature. Outside star forming regions, the interstellar radiation is weak, the dust temperature is low, and the local value of $`S_{100}/S_{60}`$ is large. For example, diffuse gas in our Galaxy, the cirrus, exhibits $`S_{100}/S_{60}=4.8`$ (Boulanger & Pérault 1988), which corresponds to the dust temperature of 27 K if dust grains radiate as a graybody with an emissivity proportional to $`\lambda ^1`$. On the other hand, Mrk starburst galaxies exhibit $`S_{100}/S_{60}3`$ as shown in Figure 1$`b`$.

The criterion $`F_{\mathrm{FIR}}/F_B>1`$ for starburst-dominant Seyfert galaxies is consistent with the criterion $`S_{100}/S_{60}>3`$ for host-dominant Seyfert galaxies. No galaxy in our samples simultaneously exhibits $`F_{\mathrm{FIR}}/F_B>1`$ and $`S_{100}/S_{60}>3`$. This is because, in a starburst region, the dust temperature is high and the local value of $`S_{100}/S_{60}`$ is small.

Finally, AGN-dominant Seyfert galaxies are defined as those with $`F_{\mathrm{FIR}}/F_B1`$ and $`S_{100}/S_{60}3`$. The optical to infrared continuum of an AGN is a superposition of emissions from the central engine and from gas and dust at various distances from the central engine. Empirically, the spectral energy distribution is approximated as $`S_\lambda \lambda ^\alpha `$ with $`\alpha 1`$ (e.g., Ward et al. 1987; Elvis et al. 1994), which yields $`F_{\mathrm{FIR}}/F_B1`$ and $`S_{100}/S_{60}2`$. Since the spectrum has a turnover at a FIR wavelength and the host galaxy dominates the observed $`F_B`$ value, we safely expect $`F_{\mathrm{FIR}}/F_B1`$ and $`S_{100}/S_{60}3`$ for an AGN-dominant Seyfert galaxy.

The flux densities at 25 µm and 21 cm are enhanced over that at 60 µm in AGNs. These enhancements have been used to select AGN-dominant Seyfert galaxies. However, there are confusing cases such that the FIR emission at 60 µm is dominated by a starburst while the mid-infrared emission at 25 µm and the radio emission at 21 cm are dominated by an AGN (e.g., NGC 1068; Wilson 1988). Our selection criterion is thus preferable.

## 4 RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

RSA and CfA Seyfert galaxies are classified into those dominated by the AGN, starburst, or host galaxy. Their statistics are summarized in Table 2. Their object numbers are shown as a function of morphological type in Figures 2 and 3. For these and the other histograms, open, hatched, and filled areas are used to denote Seyfert $`1.0+1.5`$, $`1.8+1.9`$, and 2.0 galaxies, respectively. The classification for each of the objects is given in Appendix A.

We believe that our classification is reliable. Table 2 lists well-known Seyfert galaxies in the RSA and CfA samples. They fall into appropriate classes. For the other galaxies also, our classification is consistent with those in the literature, e.g., a catalog of Seyfert galaxies with circumnuclear starbursts (Gu, Dultzin-Hacyan, & de Diego 2001), if we admit that the relative importance among the AGN, starburst, and host galaxy could vary for the wavelength. In addition, properties studied with our histograms are systematically different among the three classes. For essential differences, the confidence level estimated from the Kolmogorov-Smirnov test is given in the figure caption.

Figures 2 and 3 highlight our most important results. While AGN-dominant objects consist of comparable numbers of Seyfert 1 and 2 galaxies, starburst- and host-dominant objects consist preferentially of Seyfert 2 galaxies. Morphological types of AGN-dominant Seyfert galaxies are earlier than those of starburst-dominant Seyfert galaxies. Host-dominant Seyfert galaxies are of various morphologies. They are numerous in the RSA sample but not so in the CfA sample. These characteristics form the basis of the following discussion.

### 4.1 Obscuration of Broad-Line Region

Here we discuss mechanisms to hide a BLR. To estimate interstellar extinction outside the AGN, we use the narrow-line Balmer decrement $`F_{\mathrm{H}\alpha }/F_{\mathrm{H}\beta }`$.222 Since our Seyfert galaxies were defined on flux ratios of optical emission lines (§2), the AGN dominates the observed H$`\alpha `$ and H$`\beta `$ fluxes even if there exists a circumnuclear starburst. Since the narrow-line region is larger than the BLR, the $`F_{\mathrm{H}\alpha }/F_{\mathrm{H}\beta }`$ values do not necessarily represent extinction toward the BLRs of the individual Seyfert galaxies. They are nevertheless useful in a statistical analysis of the BLR extinction. Its intrinsic value is about 3. The Balmer decrement was measured for RSA Seyfert galaxies by Ho et al. (1997a). Their data are shown in Figure 4. Seyfert 1 galaxies exhibit $`F_{\mathrm{H}\alpha }/F_{\mathrm{H}\beta }5`$, except for an edge-on galaxy NGC 4235. Only when the extinction is small, the BLR is observable.

#### 4.1.1 AGN-Dominant Seyfert Galaxies

The BLR of an AGN-dominant Seyfert 2 galaxy is hidden by the dusty torus. As in the case of Seyfert 1 galaxies, an AGN-dominant Seyfert 2 galaxy always exhibits a small value of the Balmer decrement ($`F_{\mathrm{H}\alpha }/F_{\mathrm{H}\beta }5`$; Fig. 4). Outside the AGN, there is not sufficient material to hide the BLR.

Since the dusty tori are in random orientations, their typical opening angle $`\theta _{\mathrm{torus}}`$ is obtained from the number fraction $`f_{\mathrm{S1}}`$ of Seyfert 1 galaxies as $`\mathrm{cos}(\theta _{\mathrm{torus}}/2)=1f_{\mathrm{S1}}`$ (Osterbrock & Shaw 1988; Osterbrock & Martel 1993; see also Lawrence 1991). In our RSA and CfA samples, respectively, AGN-dominant Seyfert galaxies have $`f_{\mathrm{S1}}=0.40`$ and 0.44 (Table 2), which yield $`\theta _{\mathrm{torus}}110`$°. The opening angle is unlikely to depend on the morphological type of the galaxy. This is because the morphological distribution is not different between AGN-dominant Seyfert 1 and 2 galaxies (Figs. 2 and 3).

The $`\theta _{\mathrm{torus}}`$ values obtained previously are underestimates. The previous studies did not exclude starburst- and host-dominant objects. They are mostly Seyfert 2 galaxies where the BLR is hidden by the circumnuclear starburst region or host galaxy (see below). Our present estimate based on AGN-dominant objects alone is more reliable.

The narrow-line region of a Seyfert galaxy is often observed to be conical or biconical with the apex at the nucleus. This ionization cone is due to collimation of the ionizing radiation, which is in turn due to shadowing by the dusty torus. However, the opening angle of the ionization cone $`\theta _{\mathrm{cone}}`$ is less than that of the torus $`\theta _{\mathrm{torus}}`$ ($`\theta _{\mathrm{cone}}40`$–100°; Wilson & Tsvetanov 1994). The effective opening angle for the ionizing radiation is relatively small, if the torus does not have a well-defined edge. Some additional processes might be at work in shaping the ionization cones (Wilson & Tsvetanov 1994 and references therein).

#### 4.1.2 Starburst-Dominant Seyfert Galaxies

Starburst-dominant objects consist preferentially of Seyfert 2 galaxies (Figs. 2 and 3; see also Table 2). The BLR is hidden efficiently by the circumnuclear starburst region.333 The term “circumnuclear starburst region” in our discussion on obscuration of a BLR is used to indicate both the starburst region itself and the associated gas clouds. Although a large amount of circumnuclear gas alone is sufficient to hide the BLR, the presence of such gas leads to the occurrence of a starburst. Conversely, the occurrence of a starburst requires the presence of a large amount of gas. In fact, starburst-dominant Seyfert 2 galaxies exhibit large values of the Balmer decrement ($`F_{\mathrm{H}\alpha }/F_{\mathrm{H}\beta }>5`$; Fig. 4), contrasting to the case of AGN-dominant Seyfert 2 galaxies.

Within the starburst-dominant class, the orientation determines whether the object is observed as a Seyfert 1 or 2 galaxy. If our line of sight is blocked by the dusty torus or circumnuclear starburst region, the BLR is not observable. The torus is responsible for hiding the BLR in Seyfert 2 galaxies with exceptionally small values of the Balmer decrement.

The circumnuclear starburst region has a covering factor of 1/2–2/3. This is because the number fraction of Seyfert 1 galaxies among starburst-dominant objects is a factor of 2–3 lower than that among AGN-dominant objects, and also because 2/3 of starburst-dominant Seyfert galaxies exhibit $`F_{\mathrm{H}\alpha }/F_{\mathrm{H}\beta }>5`$ (Fig. 4).

Between Seyfert 1 and 2 galaxies, a difference in the reddening of the narrow-line region has long been known (e.g., Dahari & De Robertis 1988). This difference is inconsistent with the torus model and is attributable to the presence of starburst-dominant Seyfert 2 galaxies. The extinction within the narrow-line region is not different between Seyfert 1 and 2 galaxies, judging from our result for AGN-dominant objects (Fig. 4).

#### 4.1.3 Host-Dominant Seyfert Galaxies

Host-dominant objects consist preferentially of Seyfert 2 galaxies (Figs. 2 and 3; see also Table 2). In addition to obscuration by the dusty torus or circumnuclear starburst region, another mechanism hampers the detection of the BLR. Since the AGNs are weak, nuclear optical spectra of these objects are dominated by bulge stars. Even if there exist the broad lines, they are severely diluted by stellar absorption features. This mechanism is important when extinction outside the AGN is small. For $`F_{\mathrm{H}\alpha }/F_{\mathrm{H}\beta }5`$, actually, the number fraction of Seyfert 2 galaxies among host-dominant objects is higher than those among AGN- and starburst-dominant objects (Fig. 4). In host-dominant Seyfert 2 galaxies with $`F_{\mathrm{H}\alpha }/F_{\mathrm{H}\beta }>5`$, a circumnuclear starburst region might exist and hide the BLR.

Since we are among the first to define host-dominant Seyfert galaxies explicitly (see also Osterbrock 1993), we give examples. NGC 3031 is a nearby bright Seyfert 1 galaxy. Its BLR is not discernible without careful removal of the underlying starlight (e.g., Filippenko & Sargent 1988). If distant and faint, this object would be classified as a Seyfert 2 galaxy. The other example is NGC 4395, which harbors the least luminous known Seyfert nucleus (Filippenko & Sargent 1989).

Nicastro (2000) predicted theoretically that a BLR is intrinsically absent in some of weak AGNs. This prediction is not inconsistent with our result, although we have adopted a conservative assumption that a BLR exists in every AGN.

Host-dominant Seyfert galaxies are much more numerous in our RSA sample than they are in our CfA sample. RSA galaxies harbor less luminous AGNs than CfA galaxies (§2). With decreasing the luminosity, an AGN becomes more liable to be overwhelmed by the host galaxy. We consider that this tendency extends to LINERs, the least-luminosity AGNs.

#### 4.1.4 Intermediate-Type Seyfert Galaxies

The number ratio of Seyfert $`1.8+1.9`$ to Seyfert 2.0 galaxies is higher in our CfA sample than it is in our RSA sample (Figs. 2 and 3; see also Table 2). Especially among CfA starburst-dominant objects, Seyfert $`1.8+1.9`$ galaxies entirely account for the observed overabundance of Seyfert 2 galaxies. CfA Seyfert galaxies harbor luminous AGNs (§2). Their broad lines tend to be too strong to be hidden completely.

Within the individual galaxy samples, the number ratio of Seyfert $`1.8+1.9`$ to Seyfert 2.0 galaxies is relatively high among starburst- and host-dominant objects. The circumnuclear starburst region or host galaxy hides the BLR less completely than the dusty torus. Starburst-dominant Seyfert $`1.8+1.9`$ galaxies could be in orientations where the starburst region is not so optically thick. Host-dominant Seyfert $`1.8+1.9`$ galaxies could be just the objects where the BLR is diluted by the stellar bulge. They make up an important fraction of host-dominant objects with $`F_{\mathrm{H}\alpha }/F_{\mathrm{H}\beta }5`$ (Fig. 4). Among the other classes of objects with $`F_{\mathrm{H}\alpha }/F_{\mathrm{H}\beta }5`$, Seyfert $`1.8+1.9`$ galaxies are rare, and Seyfert 1.0+1.5 galaxies are instead as ubiquitous as Seyfert 2.0 galaxies.

### 4.2 Properties of Circumnuclear Starbursts

Circumnuclear starbursts in Seyfert galaxies are relatively old. Their starburst ages are of order 108 yr, while those of classical starburst galaxies are of order 107 yr. This fact was first noticed by Glass & Moorwood (1985) and Mouri & Taniguchi (1992). Up to now, the observational evidence has been obtained for various quantities: stellar colors and absorption features at optical wavelengths (Schmitt, Storchi-Bergmann, & Cid Fernandes 1999), stellar colors at near-infrared wavelengths (Dultzin-Hacyan & Benitez 1994; Hunt et al. 1997), equivalent width of the Br$`\gamma `$ line (Oliva et al. 1995), and so on. Mouri & Taniguchi (1992) pointed out that the age difference implies an evolution from a starburst galaxy to a starburst-dominant Seyfert galaxy.

Young star formation does not exist around an AGN. The circumnuclear starburst occurs at radii of 102–103 pc, while the fueling of the AGN occurs at radii of $`10^0`$ pc. Since it takes time to transport gas from the circumnuclear region to the nucleus, there is a delay between the onset of the starburst and that of the AGN activity (Moorwood 1996; Schmitt et al. 1999). Accordingly, a starburst-dominant Seyfert galaxy evolves from a young starburst galaxy.

The starburst age affects the flux density ratio $`S_{100}/S_{60}`$ (Mouri & Taniguchi 2000). A starburst region consists of star clusters. In a young starburst, stellar light is absorbed by dust grains in the vicinity of the individual clusters. However, in an old starburst, stellar winds and supernova explosions have pushed away those grains, and stellar light is of longer wavelengths and travel distances before absorbed by grains. The FIR emission originates in grains that lie far from the star clusters. Since the radiation field there is weak, the grain temperature is low and the local value of $`S_{100}/S_{60}`$ is large.

Figure 5 shows that starburst-dominant Seyfert galaxies have larger values of $`S_{100}/S_{60}`$ than Mrk starburst galaxies. Although some of the Seyfert galaxies appear to suffer from the AGN component with low $`S_{100}/S_{60}`$, an important fraction of them has $`S_{100}/S_{60}>2`$. The median value $`S_{100}/S_{60}=2.29`$ was obtained for a sample of old starburst galaxies by Mouri & Taniguchi (2000; Appendix B). These galaxies have starburst ages of order 108 yr. Thus our result is consistent with the previous estimates for starburst ages of Seyfert galaxies.

### 4.3 Morphological Type and Interaction Property

Figures 2 and 3 show that AGN-, starburst-, and host-dominant Seyfert galaxies have different distributions of the morphological type (see also Table 2). While AGN-dominant Seyfert galaxies are around the types S0/a–Sa ($`T=0`$–1), starburst-dominant Seyfert galaxies are around the types Sb–Sbc ($`T=3`$–4). The same result was obtained by Storchi-Bergmann et al. (2000) from an analysis of near-ultraviolet spectra of Seyfert 2 galaxies. Morphological types of host-dominant Seyfert galaxies cover those of AGN- and starburst-dominant Seyfert galaxies.

The morphological difference observed between AGN- and starburst-dominant Seyfert galaxies implies that, in a later-type galaxy, the AGN is more probable to be weak and overwhelmed by a circumnuclear starburst. The mass of the AGN central engine, a black hole, scales with that of the galaxy bulge (Ferrarese & Merritt 2000; Gebhardt et al. 2000). Thus, in a later-type galaxy, the central engine is less massive. The Eddington luminosity is accordingly lower. In addition, a later-type galaxy has a higher content of gaseous material and is more favorable for a starburst (e.g., Roberts & Haynes 1994; Kennicutt 1998).

The upper panel of Figure 6 shows the interaction class IAC determined by Dahari & De Robertis (1988) for CfA Seyfert galaxies. The IAC is a one-dimensional integer scale and describes the presence of a companion and distortion in the galaxy, i.e., signatures of a galaxy-galaxy interaction: $`IAC=1`$ for an isolated and symmetric galaxy, and $`IAC=6`$ for a strongly interacting and distorted one. While AGN-dominant Seyfert galaxies include a larger percentage of non-interacting systems, starburst-dominant Seyfert galaxies include a larger percentage of interacting systems.

The lower panel of Figure 6 shows the amplitude $`\xi _0`$ of the two-point correlation function $`\xi (r)`$ determined by De Robertis et al. (1998) for CfA Seyfert galaxies. The function $`\xi (r)=(r/r_0)^{1.77}=\xi _0r^{1.77}`$ gives the excess probability for finding a companion at distance $`r`$ from the galaxy. The search radius was 250 kpc. While AGN-dominant Seyfert galaxies tend to reside in somewhat sparse environments ($`\xi _00`$), starburst-dominant Seyfert galaxies tend to reside in dense environments ($`\xi _0>0`$). This is not an artifact of the well-known morphological segregation, i.e., earlier types in denser environments (e.g., Roberts & Haynes 1994). Starburst-dominant Seyfert galaxies are of later types than AGN-dominant Seyfert galaxies. The tendency is opposite.

We do not have enough data for host-dominant Seyfert galaxies. Their interaction properties are expected to cover those of AGN- and starburst-dominant Seyfert galaxies as in the case of morphological types, if we rely on the following discussion (see below and §4.4).

Since an accretion rate as low as 10-2 $`M_{\mathrm{}}`$ yr-1 is sufficient to sustain the typical luminosity 1010 $`L_{\mathrm{}}`$ of a Seyfert nucleus, mechanisms necessary for transporting the gas to the nucleus could be as modest as internal processes such as bars due to gravitational instabilities of the galaxy disk (Combes 2001). This is the situation in AGN-dominant Seyfert galaxies. However, the gas consumption rate in a starburst is higher, of order 100 $`M_{\mathrm{}}`$ yr-1 for 1010 $`L_{\mathrm{}}`$ (e.g., Moorwood 1996; Kennicutt 1998). Hence a starburst-dominant Seyfert galaxy prefers an external process, i.e., a tidal interaction with a nearby galaxy, which is more efficient to transport a large amount of gas to the circumnuclear and nuclear regions.

Overall, whether a Seyfert galaxy is dominated by the AGN or circumnuclear starburst depends on the morphological type and interaction property. AGN- and starburst-dominant Seyfert galaxies are separated more clearly in the morphological type (Figs. 2, 3, and 6). Thus, although the relatively unclear separation in the interaction property could be partially due to a delay in the emergence of the activity after the onset of interaction, the morphological type appears to be more important. For example, if the galaxy is of a late type and thus contains a large amount of gas, even a modest mechanism supplies sufficient fuel to the starburst. The morphological type also affects consequences of an interaction. Especially in a late-type galaxy, the absence of a massive bulge enhances the gas inflow and hence the starburst (Mihos & Hernquist 1994a).444 The exception is a major merger (Mihos & Hernquist 1994b). Even in an early-type galaxy, merging with a galaxy of comparable mass eventually overwhelms the effect of the bulge. We do not consider this violent event, which tends to result in an extreme object such as an ultraluminous infrared galaxy.

### 4.4 Possible Evolutionary Scenario

The evolution of Seyfert galaxies was discussed by, among others, Heckman et al. (1989), Osterbrock (1993), and Moorwood (1996). Their scenarios are summarized as, in terms of our classification scheme, starburst $``$ starburst-dominant Seyfert $``$ AGN-dominant Seyfert $``$ host-dominant Seyfert $``$ LINER. Here we propose a somewhat different scenario.

Observed ages of circumnuclear starbursts represent the typical lifetime of a starburst-dominant Seyfert galaxy, of order 108 yr (§4.2). The lifetimes of AGN- and host-dominant Seyfert galaxies are roughly of the same order. This is because, in our RSA sample (Fig. 2 and Table 2), the number of starburst-dominant Seyfert galaxies is comparable to those of AGN- and host-dominant Seyfert galaxies.555 The numbers of AGN- and starburst-dominant Seyfert galaxies are comparable also in our CfA sample (Fig. 3 and Table 2). However, this sample misses host-dominant Seyfert galaxies and is thus unsuited to estimating their typical lifetime (§2 and §4.1.3).

The lifetimes estimated here are consistent with characteristic time scales of Seyfert and starburst activities. The Salpeter time scale is the time over which the mass of a black hole increases by a factor $`e`$ (e.g., Osterbrock 1993). It is of order 108 yr, if the efficiency in converting the rest mass energy of infalling gas to the radiation is 10% and the bolometric luminosity is 10% of the Eddington luminosity. The gas consumption time scale is the time over which a starburst consumes the available gas at the observed star formation rate. It is of order 108 yr for classical starburst galaxies (e.g., Moorwood 1996; Kennicutt 1998; but see also Appendix B).

Our estimates imply that AGN- and starburst-dominant Seyfert galaxies do not have a direct evolutionary connection. There are systematical differences in the morphological type and interaction property (§4.3), which do not vary markedly in $`10^8`$ yr. The dynamical time scale of a galaxy is of order 108 yr. It takes much longer time for a galaxy to change from a late type to an early type. The time scale of an interaction is also $`10^8`$ yr. In the case of an unbound interaction, for example, the companion with a typical relative velocity of 300 km s-1 does not move a significant distance away from the Seyfert galaxy in 108 yr (De Robertis et al. 1998). Many interacting systems actually exhibit no signs of a Seyfert activity (Dultzin-Hacyan et al. 1999; see also De Robertis et al. 1998).

The other implication is that a Seyfert activity is repetitive. Since 10% of the RSA galaxies are Seyfert galaxies (Ho et al. 1997a), every galaxy spends 10% of the total lifetime as a Seyfert galaxy. The present-day age of a galaxy is of order $`10^{10}`$ yr. Hence a Seyfert activity with a duration of order $`10^8`$ yr has occurred several times within the same galaxy. There could even exist a possibility that an interacting galaxy becomes repeatedly a Seyfert galaxy (see also Appendix B).

Starburst-dominant Seyfert galaxies evolve from young starburst galaxies (§4.2). These are late-type galaxies. Since starbursts occur also in early-type galaxies (Fig. 1; see also Kennicutt 1998), some of AGN-dominant Seyfert galaxies could evolve from young starburst galaxies. Their vigorous AGNs could readily overwhelm the starbursts. If a supermassive black hole does not exist at the center, a starburst galaxy evolves to an old starburst galaxy such as those studied by Mouri & Taniguchi (2000; Appendix B). The origin of a supermassive black hole is attributable to a past starburst episode. It was recently discovered that the starburst galaxy M 82 harbors a black hole with a mass being intermediate between those of stellar-mass and supermassive black holes (Kaaret et al. 2001).

With a decrease of the fuel supply, AGN- and starburst-dominant Seyfert galaxies become less luminous and evolve to host-dominant Seyfert galaxies. Their number density is comparable to that of AGN- or starburst-dominant Seyfert galaxies at each of the morphological types (Fig. 2). With a further decrease of the fuel supply, host-dominant Seyfert galaxies evolve to LINERs.

The typical evolution of a Seyfert galaxy is summarized as follows. Suppose a late-type spiral galaxy where gas fueling into its nuclear region is triggered internally or externally. The resultant starburst leads to formation of a supermassive black hole. When the gas fueling occurs again, our galaxy evolves to starburst $``$ starburst-dominant Seyfert $``$ host-dominant Seyfert $``$ LINER. This sequence is repeated a few times. The repetition of starburst and Seyfert events exhausts the gas and increases the mass of the black hole. The galaxy morphology changes to an early type. Consequently, our galaxy becomes to evolve to (starburst $``$) AGN-dominant Seyfert $``$ host-dominant Seyfert $``$ LINER. Indeed some evolutionary sequences could start from middle stages.

Our scenario is in accordance with a likely evolution process of galaxy bulges, i.e., repetition of gas inflows from the disk triggered internally or externally (e.g., Wyse, Gilmore, & Franx 1997). It is predicted that bulges of many early-type galaxies contain old stars formed during distinct starburst episodes in the past. Although the existing data are not conclusive, this prediction would provide an observational test for our scenario.

## 5 CONCLUDING SUMMARY

FIR flux densities at 60 and 100 µm have been extracted from the IRAS database for the RSA and CfA complete samples of Seyfert galaxies. We have subsequently classified the Seyfert galaxies into those where the FIR continuum emission is dominated by the AGN, starburst, or host galaxy (see Table 2 for definition and number statistics). This classification has turned out to be more fundamental than the traditional spectroscopic classification, Seyfert 1 versus Seyfert 2.

AGN-dominant objects consist of comparable numbers of Seyfert 1 and 2 galaxies. The dusty torus with an opening angle of $`\theta _{\mathrm{torus}}110`$° is responsible for hiding the BLR. The morphological types are around S0/a–Sa (Figs. 2 and 3). There are few interacting systems (Fig. 6).

Starburst-dominant objects consist preferentially of Seyfert 2 galaxies. Obscuration of a BLR by a circumnuclear starburst region is important. Its covering factor is 1/2–2/3. The observed narrow-line Balmer decrements are actually high (Fig. 4). The morphological types are around Sb–Sbc (Figs. 2 and 3). There are many interacting systems (Fig. 6).

Host-dominant objects consist preferentially of Seyfert 2 galaxies. They are numerous in the less-luminous RSA sample. Even if the BLR is not obscured, its emission is diluted by stellar absorption features. The morphological types cover those of AGN- and starburst-dominant Seyfert galaxies (Fig. 2).

The torus model is thus incomplete. Seyfert 2 galaxies where the BLR is hidden by the torus are in the minority. It is estimated from our result for AGN-dominant objects that the total number of such Seyfert 2 galaxies is as small as the total number of Seyfert 1 galaxies.

The condition for predominance of a circumnuclear starburst is determined by the morphological type, which is related to the mass of the central black hole and the total amount of available gas, and the interaction property, which is related to the efficiency of gas fueling. The former appears to be more important than the latter.

Since starbursts in Seyfert galaxies are older than those in classical starburst galaxies (Fig. 5), we have proposed the evolutionary path of starburst $``$ starburst-dominant Seyfert $``$ host-dominant Seyfert $``$ LINER for a late-type galaxy. The evolutionary path proposed for an early-type galaxy is (starburst $``$) AGN-dominant Seyfert $``$ host-dominant Seyfert $``$ LINER. The individual stages of Seyfert activities have time scales of order 108 yr. These sequential activities occur several times within a galaxy during its evolution from a late type to an early type.

The processor SCANPI was developed and is maintained at the Infrared Processing and Analysis Center, California Institute of Technology. We are grateful to the referee, W. C. Keel, for helpful comments. We are also grateful for financial support from the Japanese Ministry of Education, Science, and Culture under grants 10044052 and 10304013.

## Appendix A OBSERVATIONAL DATA AND THEIR STATISTICS

Table 3 summarizes observational data of RSA and CfA Seyfert galaxies. Table 4 summarizes observational data of Mrk starburst galaxies with $`m_B14.5`$. Table 5 gives median values of several quantities for these galaxies. They were calculated with the Kaplan-Meier estimator (Feigelson & Nelson 1985), which is implemented in the numerical code ASURV Rev. 1.2 (Lavalley, Isobe, & Feigelson 1992). This estimator cannot handle upper and lower limits simultaneously. If necessary, we handled data with upper and lower limits separately, and calculated the object-number-weighted average.

The present sample of Mrk starburst galaxies does not include Mrk 732 and Mrk 897, which are in the original catalog (Balzano 1983) but have turned out to be Seyfert galaxies (e.g., Osterbrock & Pogge 1987; Keel 1996).

For RSA and CfA Seyfert galaxies, respectively, the spectral types 1.0, 1.5, 1.8, 1.9, and 2.0 were from Ho et al. (1997a) and Osterbrock & Martel (1993). When these two references assign different types to the same object, we preferred the type in Osterbrock & Martel (1993).

The coordinates were mainly from the Third Reference Catalogue of Bright Galaxies (RC3) compiled by de Vaucouleurs et al. (1991; see also Corwin, Buta, & de Vaucouleurs 1994). The coordinates of the Seyfert galaxies Mrk 205 and Mrk 841 were from Huchra & Burg (1992). Those of the starburst galaxies Mrk 220, Mrk 409, and Mrk 489 were determined with the 21 cm image of the NRAO VLA Sky Survey (Condon et al. 1998). For these coordinates, we estimated the IRAS fluxes.

The distances were mainly from the nearby galaxy catalog of Tully (1988), which is almost complete to galaxies closer than 40 Mpc. For galaxies that are not listed in Tully (1988), the distance was estimated from the recession velocity in the cosmic microwave background frame and a Hubble constant $`H_0=75`$ km s-1 Mpc-1. The recession velocities were from RC3. Exceptionally, those of the Seyfert galaxies Mrk 205 and Mrk 841 were from Huchra et al. (1983).

The Hubble type indices $`T`$ were mainly from RC3. For the Seyfert galaxies Mrk 335, I Zw 1, NGC 1144, Mrk 461, NGC 5695, and NGC 6104 as well as the starburst galaxies Mrk 102, Mrk 190, Mrk 203, Mrk 307, Mrk 353, Mrk 691, Mrk 809, and Mrk 1002, the indices were from catalogs of the CfA survey (Huchra, Vogeley, & Geller 1999; Huchra, Geller, & Corwin 1995; Huchra et al. 1983).

The apparent blue magnitudes $`m_B`$ on the Zwicky-$`B(0)`$ system were from, in decreasing order of preference, Huchra et al. (1999, 1995, 1990, 1983), Zwicky et al. (1961–1968), and Markarian et al. (1989). For the Seyfert galaxies NGC 1358 and NGC 1667, we used the RC3 photographic magnitude.

The IRAS flux densities at 12, 25, 60, and 100 µm were determined using the processor SCANPI, which projects the individual scan tracks crossing the target position onto a mean one-dimensional scan, subtracts baselines, coadds the scans, and provides estimates of flux densities. There are two coaddition methods. We usually adopted the noise-weighted mean. If it disagrees with the median by more than 1$`\sigma `$, we adopted the latter. Then we examined the scan profile and judged whether the source was unresolved or resolved. For an unresolved source, we used the best-fitting point-source template as the estimator of the flux density. If the fit was poor, we instead used the peak flux density for a bright source or the flux density integrated over a fixed range for a faint source. The integration ranges at 12, 25, 60, and 100 µm were $`\pm 2\mathrm{}`$, $`\pm 2\mathrm{}`$, $`\pm 2\stackrel{}{\mathrm{.}}5`$, and $`\pm 4\mathrm{}`$, respectively. These ranges were also used to integrate the flux density of a faint resolved source. For a bright resolved source, the integration was made between the zero crossings. The upper limit was set to be $`3\sigma `$. If there could exist contamination of a nearby object, we indicate so in Table 3 or 4. Flux densities were determined in the same manner by Soifer et al. (1989) and Sanders et al (1995). If available, we used their data. For galaxies with large apparent diameters, we preferentially used two-dimensionally coadded flux densities of Rice et al. (1988).

## Appendix B COMMENTS ON NUCLEAR-STARBURST GALAXIES

The star formation rate of a nuclear starburst varies largely in time. A plausible approximation is a series of burst events. The individual bursts have durations of order 106–107 yr and probably correspond to formation of (groups of) star clusters. The entire series could have a long duration, $``$ 108 yr, which reflects time scales of gas fueling, gas consumption due to star formation, gas removal due to stellar winds and supernova explosions, and so on (e.g., Leitherer 2001).

Classical starburst galaxies such as Mrk objects are biased in favor of galaxies with ongoing bursts, i.e., young starburst galaxies. They are selected by optical line emission, which originates in ionized gas around O stars. However, there are numerous B stars also, which have long lifetimes and are responsible for most of the FIR emission. With an increase of the burst age above the burst duration, O stars become few, but B stars remain numerous, and the FIR emission remains strong. Mouri & Taniguchi (2000) studied such old starburst galaxies in the RSA sample. These galaxies are at quiescent stages between burst events or at post-starburst stages (see also Kennicutt 1998).

A nuclear starburst occurs several times within the same galaxy. Mrk starburst galaxies have burst ages of order $`10^7`$ yr and account for 3% of all the galaxies (Balzano 1983; Calzetti 1997). Old starburst galaxies studied by Mouri & Taniguchi (2000) have burst ages of order 108 yr and account for 30%–40% of all the galaxies. These number fractions are too large to be explained by a single series of burst events in a galaxy, which has an age of order 1010 yr. The prototypical starburst galaxy M 82 harbors a fossil starburst $`6\times 10^8`$ yr old, which had a duration of a few $`\times `$ 108 yr, and an ongoing starburst 1–$`2\times 10^7`$ yr old (de Grijs, O’Connell, & Gallagher 2001). Since a starburst is caused by gas fueling into the nuclear region as in the case of a Seyfert activity, this fact is consistent with our scenario that the gas fueling and hence the Seyfert activity are repetitive (§4.4).

Morphological types of old starburst galaxies tend to be later than those of young starburst galaxies and Seyfert galaxies (Mouri & Taniguchi 2000; see also Ho, Filippenko, & Sargent 1997b). Since a supermassive black hole prefers an early type (§4.3), this tendency is consistent with our scenario that a young starburst galaxy without a supermassive black hole evolves to an old starburst galaxy (§4.4).

## FIGURE CAPTIONS


text:
# Mean-Field Treatment of the Many-Body Fokker-Planck Equation

## I Introduction

The dynamics of brownian particles is a subject of great interest in statistical physics, especially when the particles interact through potentials that can be short or long ranged, from the simple hard-core to coulombian interactions. The physics of surfaces, more precisely the motion of adatoms on substrates, provides an experimental realization of this problem. Interactions can lead to collective phenomena, and, generally speaking, to patterns in space. Pioneering works have revealed experimental and computational evidences of a phase transition in the case of oxygen adsorbed on tungsten. This phase transition and the dynamics of such systems (e. g. the modification of the diffusion constant $`D`$ of a tracer, time auto-correlation fonction of the on-site density, etc…) where analyzed by Tringides et al.  and reviewed by Gomer . Numerical studies for a two-dimensional lattice gas have also been performed in the case of a contact interaction . On a different scale, the hydrodynamics of interacting brownian particles have been studied for short-ranged or screened interactions in. In a slighly different context, especially when the considered system is an open one, many papers have been devoted to statistical models describing chemical reactions (and references therein, especially the review by Zhdano and Kasemo). For details on 2-dimensional lattice gas models (and their subsequent approximations), the review by Kehr and Binder  is highly recommendable.

In the present paper, we use the framework of the many-body Fokker-Planck equation (FPE), written for $`N`$ interacting particles – as such, this is a continuous space model. The ordinary FPE describes the diffusive motion of brownian particles under the assumption of slow diffusion. It can be derived by using the Kramers-Moyal systematic expansion and arises when one assumes that all the moments of the increments of the stochastic variable of order $`3`$ are proportional to $`\mathrm{\Delta }t^r,r>1`$, where $`\mathrm{\Delta }t`$ is the time increment. As such, FPE is a conservation equation for a probability density $`P`$, which can always be written in the form:

$$_tP=\text{div }J,$$
(1)
where $`J`$ is the probability current. As an example, for a single particle with position $`𝐱`$ moving in the static external potential $`V(𝐱)`$, the current is the sum of the drift term $`\mu P_𝐱V`$ and of the diffusion current $`D_𝐱P`$; in such a case, the equation writes:

$$_tP(𝐱,t)=_𝐱\left[D_𝐱P(𝐱,t)+\mu P(𝐱,t)_𝐱V(𝐱)\right],$$
(2)
where $`\mu `$ is the mobility and $`D`$ the diffusion constant. Eq. (2) gives the probability density for the position of a particle obeying the Langevin equation in its viscuous limit, an initial distribution being given.

With several particles, the interesting case occurs when they interact through a given internal force field deriving from a potential $`V`$, opening the possibility of competing effects. When $`V`$ is purely repulsive, no interesting effect is expected: in infinite space, one can guess that the equilibrium state is the uniform one, all probability densities being constant in space. In the opposite case, when the particles attract each other, a competition between diffusion and interaction takes place, which can, at least in principle, produce patterns or structures in space. Obviously enough, the possibility of the latter depends on the features of the interaction potential, namely its strength and its range, and possibly of the dimensionality. The competition between drift and diffusion is measured by the ratio $`D/\mu `$; as a consequence, patterns can be expected at low temperatures, i. e. when the drift term dominates diffusion. If there exists a definite value $`D_\mathrm{c}`$ of $`D`$ which separates two distinct stationary solutions, the Einstein relation $`D/\mu =k_\mathrm{B}T`$ allows to identify a critical temperature $`T_\mathrm{c}`$.

The purpose of this paper is to put forward a few results concerning the equilibrium state of FPE for interacting particles, obtained within a mean field approximation. The paper is organized as follows. After setting the basic equations relevant to our purpose, we first focus on some potentials allowing an exact treatment of the mean-field equations. In a second step, we discuss the linear stability of the uniform equilibrium state, which is always a solution of the problem. It is seen that unstabilities can indeed occur, and the conditions for that are given, yielding the expression of the critical temperature $`T_\mathrm{c}`$. Eventually, we give the far-from-equilibrium dynamics of the uniform state suddenly cooled below $`T_\mathrm{c}`$.

For $`N`$ identical interacting particles, the potential is noted $`V(𝐱_1,𝐱_2,\mathrm{}𝐱_N)`$ and the generalization of (2) writes:

$$_tP(𝐱_1,\mathrm{},𝐱_N,t)=\underset{i}{}_{𝐱_i}\left[D_{𝐱_i}P(𝐱_1,\mathrm{},𝐱_N,t)+\mu P(𝐱_1,\mathrm{},𝐱_N,t)_{𝐱_i}V(𝐱_1,\mathrm{},𝐱_N)\right];$$
(3)
in the following the potential is assumed to be the sum of $`N(N1)`$ even two-body terms:

$$V(𝐱_1,𝐱_2,\mathrm{}𝐱_N)=\frac{1}{2}\underset{ij}{}v(𝐱_i𝐱_j),v(𝐱)=v(𝐱).$$
(4)
Obviously, the solution of (3) – if known –, is of little physical interest, since one is usually interested in the one-particle density $`P^{(1)}`$ and the pair-density function $`P^{(2)}`$ (reduced densities of order 1 and 2), defined as:

$$P^{(1)}(𝐱,t)=d𝐱_2\mathrm{}d𝐱_NP(𝐱,𝐱_2,\mathrm{},𝐱_N,t),P^{(2)}(𝐱,𝐱^{},t)=d𝐱_3\mathrm{}d𝐱_NP(𝐱,𝐱^{},𝐱_3,\mathrm{},𝐱_N,t).$$
(5)
Due to the many-body interactions, reduced densities obey a hierarchy of the BBGKY type (see e. g. McQuarrie); in the present context, the first equation of this hierarchy writes:

$$_tP^{(1)}(𝐱,t)=_𝐱\left[D_𝐱P^{(1)}(𝐱,t)+(N1)\mu d𝐱^{}P^{(2)}(𝐱,𝐱^{},t)_𝐱v(𝐱𝐱^{})\right].$$
(6)
Solving this hierarchy is usually impossible; the simplest approximation is of the mean-field type, in which one imposes the form:

$$P(𝐱_1,𝐱_2,\mathrm{}𝐱_N,t)=\underset{i=1}{\overset{N}{}}p(𝐱_i,t).$$
(7)
From (6), the mean-field one-particle probability density $`p`$ must obey the following equation:

$$_tp(𝐱,t)=_𝐱\left[D_𝐱p(𝐱,t)+(N1)\mu p(𝐱,t)d𝐱^{}p(𝐱^{},t)_𝐱v(𝐱𝐱^{})\right].$$
(8)
Thus, for $`N1`$, the particle density $`n(𝐱,t)=Np(𝐱,t)`$ is the solution of the integrodifferential non-linear equation:

$$_tn(𝐱,t)=_𝐱\left[D_𝐱n(𝐱,t)+\mu n(𝐱,t)_𝐱d𝐱^{}n(𝐱^{},t)v(𝐱𝐱^{})\right].$$
(9)
Clearly, even in this mean-field approximation, finding the solution is by far not a trivial question.

## II Some exact stationary solutions of the one-dimensional Mean-Field FPE

In one dimension, all the stationary solutions of (9) give a vanishing current $`J`$ and are the solutions of:

$$D\frac{\mathrm{d}}{\mathrm{d}x}n(x)+\mu n(x)\frac{\mathrm{d}}{\mathrm{d}x}_{\mathrm{}}^+\mathrm{}dx^{}n(x^{})v(xx^{})=\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}0}.$$
(10)
Because $`n`$ also appears in the integral, the stationary mean-field solution is not connected in an obvious way to the Boltzmann distribution built with $`v(x)`$. One could naively believe that, since in the mean-field treatment each particle interacts with $`N1N`$ other particles through the potential $`v(x)`$, its equilibrium distribution is $`\mathrm{e}^{N\beta v(x)}`$. This turns out to be wrong in general, except for the harmonic potential. Indeed, the one-particle density is obtained by integrating over the coordinates of all the other $`N1`$ particles and there is no reason ensuring that the bare two-body interaction $`v(x)`$ should spontaneously appear in the Boltzmann way in the one-particle density, even in a mean-field approach. It will be seen that the ordinary Boltzmann factor is recovered only in certain limits (see below). Also note that, since there is no external force field, the equilibrium states – assumed to be independent of the initial condition which naturally implies privileged points – are defined up to an arbitrary translation in space. Otherwise stated, if $`n(x)`$ is a solution of (10) defined for all $`x`$ between $`\pm \mathrm{}`$, then $`n_{x_0}(x)=n(xx_0)`$, $`x_0`$ arbitrary, is also a solution. This degeneracy is discarded by the use of symmetric boundary conditions (see below) or by having in mind that the displayed equilibrium states arise from the initial condition $`p(x,t=0)=\delta (x)`$.

For some potentials, the solution of the equation (10) can be found in closed form. In the following section, we give a few examples and briefly analyze the corresponding solutions.

### A The Coulomb Potential

We first choose:

$$v(x)=v_0\frac{|x|}{\xi },(v_0>0),$$
(11)
which, for $`d=1`$, mimics the Coulomb potential in the sense that $`v(x)`$ satisfies the Poisson equation. This is clearly a long-ranged attractive potential: the force exerted on a given particle is constant in space and is equal to $`(v_0/\xi )\mathrm{sgn}x`$.

Let us first assume that the particles are confined in the interval $`[L/2,+L/2]`$. Introducing the integrated density $`q(x)`$:

$$q(x)=_0^xn(x^{})dx^{},$$
(12)
it is readily seen from (10) and (11) that $`q(x)`$ obeys the following differential equation ($`\beta ^1=k_\mathrm{B}T`$):

$$q^{\prime \prime }(x)+\frac{\beta v_0}{\xi }q^{}(x)[2q(x)N]=\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}0}.$$
(13)
Using the boundary conditions $`q(L/2)=0`$ and $`q(+L/2)=N`$, a little algebra yields the properly normalized density in the limit $`L+\mathrm{}`$:

$$n(x)=\frac{N}{2\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{cosh}^2(x/\mathrm{\Delta })},\mathrm{\Delta }=\frac{2\xi }{N\beta v_0}.$$
(14)
This is a peaked distribution, which tends towards $`N\delta (x)`$ in the limit $`N+\mathrm{}`$. Due to the infinite range of the potential, the stationary state is for any $`D`$ and large $`N`$ a cluster of very small shape as compared to $`\xi `$ when $`\beta v_01`$. Note that $`p(x)`$ is flat at $`x=0`$ but decreases approximately like an exponential:

$$n(x)\xi ^1N^2\beta v_0\mathrm{e}^{N\beta v_0|x|/\xi }\xi ^1N^2\beta v_0\mathrm{e}^{N\beta v(x)}\text{if}x\frac{\xi }{N\beta v_0}.$$
(15)
This shows that the Boltzmann behaviour is recovered in the wings of the distribution only.

Note that it is not necessary to introduce a finite interval of length $`L`$ and subsequently to take the limit $`L\mathrm{}`$. Yet, this procedure allows to discuss the invariance by translation mentionned above. Indeed, taking the boundaries at $`\pm L/2`$ forces the solution $`n(x)`$ to be even, a symmetry which is conserved when the limit $`L\mathrm{}`$ is performed afterwards. On the other hand, by assuming infinite space at the beginning, the calculation yields the same solution (14) as well as all the translated functions $`n_{x_0}(x)=n(xx_0)`$ with $`x_0`$ arbitrary. It can be checked that all the functions $`n_{x_0}(x)`$ indeed satisfy (10).

### B The Harmonic Potential

We now take $`v(x)=v_0x^2/(2\xi ^2)`$, $`v_0>0`$, another example of long-ranged attractive potential. In this case, (10) writes:

$$n^{}(x)+\frac{\beta v_0}{\xi ^2}n(x)_{\mathrm{}}^+\mathrm{}(xx^{})n(x^{})dx^{}=\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}0}.$$
(16)
For even $`n(x)=n(x)`$, this simplifies to:

$$n^{}(x)+N\frac{\beta v_0}{\xi ^2}xn(x)=\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}0},$$
(17)
which gives the solution for the density:

$$n(x)=\frac{N}{\sqrt{2\pi }\mathrm{\Delta }}\mathrm{e}^{x^2/(2\mathrm{\Delta }^2)},\mathrm{\Delta }=\frac{\xi }{\sqrt{N\beta v_0}}.$$
(18)
Note that the expression (18) is simply of the form $`\mathrm{e}^{N\beta v(x)}`$, which is the Boltzmann distribution for a single particle elastically bound with $`N`$ others. The fact that this is true for all $`N`$ and $`x`$ is clearly characteristic of the harmonic potential. Again, it is readily checked that all the functions $`n(xx_0)`$ satisfy (16) with $`x_0`$ arbitrary.

### C Polynomial Potentials

The harmonic potential treated above immediately gives the clue for solving the same problem with any potential of the polynomial type:

$$v(x)=\underset{r1}{}c_rx^r.$$
(19)
With this kind of potential, (10) assumes the form:

$$n^{}(x)+\beta n(x)\underset{r1}{}rc_r_{\mathrm{}}^+\mathrm{}(xx^{})^{r1}n(x^{})dx^{}=\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}0}.$$
(20)
By rearranging terms in the integral, this can be rewritten as:

$$n^{}(x)+\beta n(x)\underset{r1}{}\gamma _r(x)f_r=\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}0},$$
(21)
where the $`\gamma _r(x)`$ are definite polynomials and where the quantities $`f_r`$ are the moments of $`n(x)`$:

$$f_r=_{\mathrm{}}^+\mathrm{}x^rn(x)dx.$$
(22)
Now, (21) can be formally integrated, to give a function $`p(x)`$ containing the parameters $`f_r`$:

$$n(x)=\mathrm{e}^{\beta _{r0}\mathrm{\Gamma }_r(x)f_r},$$
(23)
the $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_r`$ being definite functions depending on $`v(x)`$. By reporting this expression in (22), one can write as many equations as necessary to find the $`f_r`$ and eventually obtain the explicit expression of $`n(x)`$. Clearly, the latter is not a priori of the form $`\mathrm{e}^{N\beta v(x)}`$.

As an example, let us consider the quartic potential:

$$v(x)=v_0\left[g\left(\frac{x}{\xi }\right)^2+\left(\frac{x}{\xi }\right)^4\right].$$
(24)
This potential is purely attractive if $`g>\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}0}`$; otherwise, it is repulsive for $`x`$ between $`\pm \sqrt{[g/2]}`$ and attractive elsewhere. Inserting this potential in (20) and integrating, one finds:

$$n(x)=C\mathrm{e}^{\beta v_0[(g\xi ^2f_0+6f_2)x^2/\xi ^4+f_0x^4/\xi ^4]}.$$
(25)
$`f_0`$ is equal to $`N`$, whereas the unknown quantities $`C`$ and $`f_2`$ can be derived from the two equations:

$$2C_0^+\mathrm{}\mathrm{e}^{\beta v_0[(gN+f_2/\xi ^2)X^2+NX^4]}dX=N,2C\xi ^2_0^+\mathrm{}X^2\mathrm{e}^{\beta v_0[(gN+f_2/\xi ^2)X^2+NX^4]}dX=f_2.$$
(26)
Note that the expression (25) is not $`\mathrm{e}^{N\beta v(x)}`$, except if $`f_2`$ is negligible as compared to $`N\xi ^2`$ (see below). The above integrals can be expressed  with the Weber functions $`𝒟_\nu `$:

$$\sqrt{\pi }C(2N\beta v_0)^{1/4}\mathrm{e}^{A^2/4}𝒟_{1/2}(A)=N,\frac{\sqrt{\pi }}{2}C\xi ^2(2N\beta v_0)^{3/4}\mathrm{e}^{A^2/4}𝒟_{3/2}(A)=f_2,$$
(27)
where the constant $`A`$ is:

$$A=\frac{\beta v_0}{2N}(gN+f_2/\xi ^2)^2.$$
(28)
For arbitrary $`N`$, these equations can be numerically solved to provide the two parameters $`C`$ and $`f_2`$. On the other hand, when $`N`$ is very large, one can find directly asymptotic expressions of the integrals appearing in (26). By doing so and coming back to the mean-field density $`n(x)`$, one gets according to the sign of $`g`$:

$$n(x)N\xi ^1\left(\frac{2g\beta v_0N}{\sqrt{\pi }}\right)^{1/2}\mathrm{e}^{N\beta v(x)}(g>0),$$
(29)
$$n(x)N\xi ^1\left(\frac{|g|\beta v_0N}{\sqrt{2\pi }}\right)^{1/2}\mathrm{e}^{N\beta v_0g^2/4}\mathrm{e}^{N\beta v(x)}(g<0).$$
(30)
This shows that the Boltzmann distribution is recovered only in the limit $`N1`$ . For positive $`g`$, one has a single cluster with a width $`(N\beta v_0)^{1/2}\xi `$. For negative $`g`$, two peaks arise, both having the latter width, and separated by $`\sqrt{2g}\xi `$.

Note that, in any case with $`\beta v_01`$, the mean-field stationary state for large $`N`$ is a compact cluster with a very small size as compared to the characteristic length $`\xi `$ of the potential.

## III Linear stability analysis of the uniform state

In the previous section, we displayed several potentials allowing an exact explicit expression for the non-uniform equilibrium state with a vanishing current. On the other hand, (10) always trivially has the uniform state as solution. All this means that several solutions can exist and the question arises to settle which of them can indeed be realized for a given ratio $`D/\mu `$. The aim of this section is to analyze the linear stability of the uniform solution $`n_0`$ of the mean-field equation (10) in any dimension. Setting $`n(𝐱,t)=n_0+\delta n(𝐱,t)`$ and discarding all terms of order greater than one, one obtains:

$$_t\delta n(𝐱,t)=D_𝐱^2\delta n(𝐱,t)+\mu n_0_𝐱d𝐱^{}\delta n(𝐱^{},t)_𝐱v(𝐱𝐱^{}).$$
(31)
This linear equation can now be analyzed by introducing the Fourier transforms:

$$\rho (𝐪,t)=d𝐱\mathrm{e}^{\mathrm{i}\mathrm{𝐪𝐱}}\delta n(𝐱,t),\stackrel{~}{v}(𝐪)=d𝐱\mathrm{e}^{\mathrm{i}\mathrm{𝐪𝐱}}v(𝐱),$$
(32)
and it is readily seen that all the eigenmodes of (31) are of the form $`\mathrm{e}^{\omega (𝐪)t}`$, with $`\omega (𝐪)`$ given by the dispersion relation:

$$\omega (𝐪)=\left[D+\mu n_0\stackrel{~}{v}(𝐪)\right]𝐪^2D_{\mathrm{eff}}(𝐪)𝐪^2.$$
(33)
$`D_{\mathrm{eff}}`$ plays the role of an effective $`𝐪`$-dependent diffusion constant; it can be said that, due to interactions, Fick’s law is no more a local law. Setting:

$$v(x)=v_0\varphi (x/\xi ),\varphi (0)>\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}0},x=|𝐱|,q=|𝐪|,$$
(34)
the dispersion law (33) in $`d`$ dimensions can be rewritten as:

$$\omega (q)=D\left[1+\beta v_0n_0\xi ^dU_d(q\xi )\right]q^2,$$
(35)
where $`U_d`$ is a dimensionless function. More precisely, one has ($`J_0`$ is the ordinary Bessel function):

$$U_1(\kappa )=\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}_0^+\mathrm{}\varphi (X)\mathrm{cos}(\kappa X)dX,U_2(\kappa )=\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}\pi _0^+\mathrm{}X\varphi (X)J_0(\kappa X)dX,$$
(36)
$$U_3(\kappa )=\frac{4\pi }{\kappa }_0^+\mathrm{}X\varphi (X)\mathrm{sin}(\kappa X)dX.$$
(37)
Eq. (35) shows that the uniform solution is unstable against a deformation with a wavevector $`𝐪`$ satisfying:

$$k_\mathrm{B}T+n_0\xi ^dv_0U_d(q\xi )<\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}0}.$$
(38)
Clearly, such a condition cannot be satisfied for a purely repulsive potential, since then both $`v_0`$ and $`U_d`$ are positive quantitiesWhen $`\varphi (X)`$ is a positive function, $`U_d`$ is bounded below by a positive (possibly diverging) integral.: for repulsive forces, the uniform state is always stable, as anticipated on physical grounds in section I.

When $`v`$ is attractive at short distances, $`v_0`$ is negative. The possibility of instability then depends only on the precise behaviour of the dimensionless Fourier transform $`U_d`$. For very short ranged potentials, $`U_d(\kappa )`$ is expected to be positive for all $`\kappa `$. The instability condition can then be rewritten in a more transparent form :

$$k_\mathrm{B}T<n_0\xi ^d|v_0|U_d(q\xi ),v_0<0.$$
(39)
If, in addition, $`U_d`$ is a monotonous decreasing function, instability occurs at large wavelengths provided the temperature is low enough. More precisely, provided that $`U_d(0)`$ is finite (short-range potential), one can define a critical temperature $`T_\mathrm{c}`$:

$$k_\mathrm{B}T_\mathrm{c}=n_0\xi ^d|v_0|U_d(0).$$
(40)
For $`T<T_\mathrm{c}`$, there exists a finite interval $`[0,q_{\mathrm{max}}]`$ in which the uniform state in unstable. $`q_{\mathrm{max}}`$ is a function of the density $`n_0`$ and the temperature. Assuming that $`U_d(0)`$ is of order unity, (40) means that the critical temperature is such that the thermal energy is of the order of the effective interaction energy.

The existence of an upper $`q_{\mathrm{max}}`$, below which the uniform solution is unstable is easily understood on physical grounds. For a small disturbance having a large wavelength compared to the range of the potential, particles in excess tend to attract each other more firmly, increasing holes in the density. On the other hand, when the wavelength is quite small, the inhomogenities are easily washed out since holes and particles all interact.

As an example, let us consider the $`d`$-dimensional gaussian attractive potential:

$$v(x)=v_0\mathrm{e}^{x^2/(2\xi ^2)},v_0<\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}0}.$$
(41)
In this case, one has:

$$k_\mathrm{B}T_\mathrm{c}=(2\pi )^{d/2}n_0\xi ^d|v_0|$$
(42)
and $`q_{\mathrm{max}}`$ is given by:

$$q_{\mathrm{max}}=\xi ^1\left(2\mathrm{ln}\frac{T_\mathrm{c}}{T}\right)^{1/2},TT_\mathrm{c}$$
(43)
which entails that:

$$q_{\mathrm{max}}(T_\mathrm{c}T)^{1/2},TT_\mathrm{c}.$$
(44)
These last results are depicted in the left part of fig. 1. The same conclusions still qualitatively hold if a repulsive core is added (e. g. 6-12 Lennard-Jones or Morse potential). This only affects the large-$`q`$ behaviour of $`\stackrel{~}{v}`$ and does not change the results.

When the potential has a sharp cut-off, its Fourier transform has an oscillatory behaviour at relatively small wave numbers and an interesting phenomenon occurs. To be specific, let us take the following square potential:

$$v(x)=\{\begin{array}{cc}v_0\hfill & \text{if }|x|<\xi /2\hfill \\ 0\hfill & \text{otherwise}\hfill \end{array},v_0<\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}0}.$$
(45)
We here find $`k_\mathrm{B}T_\mathrm{c}=n_0\xi |v_0|`$. Now, let us note $`X_k`$ the abscissæ of the maxima of $`(\mathrm{sin}X)/X`$ and $`s_k(\mathrm{sin}X_k)/X_k`$ ($`X_0=0`$, $`s_0=1`$). Then, for $`s_1T_\mathrm{c}<T<T_\mathrm{c}`$, a single instability interval arises, $`[q_{\mathrm{min},\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}1}}=0,q_{\mathrm{max},\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}1}}]`$. When $`T`$ decreases, another interval $`[q_{\mathrm{min},\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}},q_{\mathrm{max},\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}}]`$ is found when $`s_2T_\mathrm{c}<T<s_1T_\mathrm{c}`$, and so on. The situation is depicted on fig. 1. Thus, for a short-range potential with a sharp cut-off, several disjoint instability intervals are successively obtained when the temperature is decreased.

If $`U_d(0)`$ is infinite, $`T_\mathrm{c}`$ is formally also infinite; this means that the uniform solution is unstable at small $`q`$ for any temperature (see fig. 2, left). For instance, for the one-dimensional Coulomb potential (11), one has (after regularization) $`U_1(\kappa )=2/\kappa ^2`$, so that:

$$q_{\mathrm{max}}=\xi ^1\sqrt{\frac{2n_0\xi v_0}{k_\mathrm{B}T}},T.$$
(46)
The same holds true for higher dimensions, since $`U_d(\kappa )`$ is for any $`d`$ proportional to $`\kappa ^2`$.

In the preceding examples, the first instability interval, when it exists, arises around $`q=0`$. This is, as explained above, a physical consequence of the fact that the potential is purely attractive (the fact that $`T_\mathrm{c}`$ is finite or not is a consequence of the range only). Another interesting situation is when $`v`$ is attractive at short distance and repulsive at long distance; this means that two particles are bound by a potential barrier but can dissociate when one of them is given enough energy. As an example, let us consider the inverted 3$`d`$ Morse potential:

$$v(x)=v_0\left[\mathrm{e}^{2(rr_0)/\xi }2\mathrm{e}^{(rr_0)/\xi }\right],v_0<\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}0}.$$
(47)
In such a case, $`T_\mathrm{c}`$ is again finite, and the instability interval for $`q`$ is of the form $`[q_{\mathrm{min}},q_{\mathrm{max}}]`$; it grows around a finite value (which gives $`U_3(q\xi )`$ its secondary minimum) and is a consequence, at intermediate wavelengths, of the interplay between attraction at short distances and repulsion at large ones. This instability domain is schematized in figure 2. Quite naturally, the uniform state is stable against long wavelength deformations (due to the long distance repulsive behaviour of the potential) and unstable otherwise.

## IV Numerical study of the Gaussian attractive case

From the arguments and results given in the two previous sections, we expect that for a Gaussian attractive (an example of short-range potential), two equilibrium solutions exist; the uniform one, which is unstable against long wavelength deformations when $`T<T_\mathrm{c}`$, where $`T_\mathrm{c}`$ is given by (42), and a non-uniform distribution, which we were unable to find analytically in a closed form. The aim of this section is to give numerical results for the one-dimensional gaussian potential. It is shown below that the predicted transition between these two states is indeed quite sharp when $`T`$ crosses $`T_\mathrm{c}`$ and that, in addition, an hysteretic behaviour occurs.

We choose $`v(x)=v_0\mathrm{e}^{x^2/(2\xi ^2)}`$ ($`v_0<0`$) which yields $`\stackrel{~}{v}(q)=\sqrt{2\pi }\xi v_0\mathrm{e}^{\xi ^2q^2/2}`$. The unstability condition (38) gives the critical temperature (see (40)):

$$T_\mathrm{c}=\sqrt{2\pi }n_0\xi |v_0|/k_\mathrm{B}.$$
(48)
In order to analyze the equilibrium state(s) $`n(x)`$ arising in the mean-field treatment with the gaussian potential, we used two numerical procedures. The first one is a self-consistent iterative procedure for the equilibrium equation (10), hereafter called static algorithm. The second one (called dynamical algorithm) numerically solves the one-dimensional version of the full equation (9), starting from a given initial condition $`n(x,t=0)`$, and gives the non-equilibrium evolution of the system.

With the static algorithm, we start from a trial density function $`n^{(0)}`$ and then iterate according to:

$$n^{(k+1)}(x)=Z^1\mathrm{e}^{\beta _Ldyn^{(k)}(x)v(yx)},$$
(49)
where $`Z`$ is the normalisation constant. Convergence is reached when the following quantity:

$$_Ldx\left(\frac{n^{(k+1)}(x)n^{(k)}(x)}{n^{(k+1)}(x)}\right)^2$$
(50)
becomes much less than unity. Strict boundary conditions have been used, namely $`j(0,t)=j(l,t)=0`$ .

These calculations allow first to check the existence of the sharp transition occurring at $`T_\mathrm{c}`$ when the temperature is decreased starting with the uniform state; second, they reveal a hysteretic behaviour: when the temperature is increased starting from the localized state (one cluster), the transition from the localized state to the uniform one occurs at another temperature $`T_\mathrm{c}^{}>T_\mathrm{c}`$.

Fig. 3 displays two typical density profiles (uniform vs localized cluster), just above and just below $`T_\mathrm{c}`$ obtained with this static algorithm. Since the width of the localized state turns out to be a little bit smaller than the range $`\xi `$ of the potential, the central part of the cluster can be safely approximated by a gaussian; indeed, when one expands the potential near $`x/\xi 0`$, the harmonic potential is recovered (if instead of a gaussian potential, one chooses $`v(x)=v_0\mathrm{e}^{|x|/\xi }`$, the central shape of the localized cluster is $`1/\mathrm{cosh}^2x`$, as it must (see (14)) since near the center this potential is essentially the Coulomb one). Obviously, such an approximation cannot properly represent the tails of the equilibrium density.

In order to characterize the transition, we introduce two quantities, $`\epsilon `$ and $`\lambda `$ defined as follows:

$$\epsilon (T/T_\mathrm{c})=\frac{1}{N}_Ldxdx^{}n(x)n(x^{})v(xx^{}),$$
(51)
and:

$$\mathrm{\Delta }^2(T/T_\mathrm{c})=\frac{1}{N}_Ldxx^2n(x)\left[\frac{1}{N}_Ldxxn(x)\right]^2.$$
(52)
$`\epsilon `$ represents the mean-field interaction energy per particle; $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ measures the spatial width of the cluster. For the uniform state one has $`\epsilon _{\mathrm{unif}}=(N/L)_Ldxv(x)N(\xi /L)v_0`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{\mathrm{unif}}L\xi `$; on the contrary, for the localized state, $`\epsilon _{\mathrm{loc}}Nv_0`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{\mathrm{loc}}\xi `$. For an infinite system, the ratio $`\epsilon _{\mathrm{loc}}/\epsilon _{\mathrm{uniform}}`$ vanishes, so that $`\epsilon `$ can play the role of an order parameter.

The hysteresis is obtained as follows. For each given temperature, the starting point is the solution found in the previous run at a slightly different temperature. After a first sequence where $`T/T_\mathrm{c}`$ is decreased step by step down to $`0.2`$, the procedure is reversed, $`T/T_\mathrm{c}`$ is increased, the iterative procedure starting again from the localized solution obtained for the previous value of $`T/T_\mathrm{c}`$. It is found that the inverse transition does not occur at $`T/T_\mathrm{c}=1`$, but at a higher temperature $`T_\mathrm{c}^{}`$.

Clearly, for $`T<T_\mathrm{c}`$, several solutions can exist. Since the width of the single peak solution is a bit smaller than the range $`\xi `$ of the potential, one can guess that there also exists a solution with two peaks separated by a distance much larger that $`\xi `$. This is confirmed by the numerical calculations: starting with a trial function having two separate peaks, the calculation converges towards a stable solution having the same features. One thus can claim that, on the low-temperature side, localized solutions exist displaying $`j=1,\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2},\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}3},\mathrm{}`$ peaks. Each of these solutions has its own temperature $`T_{\mathrm{c},j}^{}`$. The corresponding typical hysteretic cycles are shown on figure (4) for the “order parameter” $`\epsilon `$ for the one-,two-, and three-peak solutions.

The possibility of the $`n`$-peak solutions is confirmed by the dynamic algorithm (it was checked that the latter eventually yields the same equilibrium solutions as the static one). This allows to conclude that a given $`j`$-peak solution is linearly stable for $`T_\mathrm{c}<T<T_{\mathrm{c},j}^{}`$. Note that the linear stability of the $`n`$-peak solutions above $`T_\mathrm{c}`$ is not in contradiction with the results obtained in section III; all this simply means that, in the region $`T_\mathrm{c}<T<T_{\mathrm{c},j}^{}`$, both the uniform state and the localized state(s) are stable against small perturbations.

Defining the entropy as $`S=_Ldxn(x)\mathrm{ln}[n(x)/n_0]`$, it is seen that the one-peak solution is the one having the lowest free energy $`F=\epsilon TS`$. It must be noted that each kind of states has its own relevant physical parameters. For the uniform state, the relevant parameters are $`v_0,\xi ,n_0=N/L`$ and the critical temperature found by the linear stability analysis is a function of these parameters. For the localized state, the relevant parameters are $`v_0,\xi `$ and $`N`$, the number of particles. Indeed, for this state, edge-effects become irrelevant when $`\xi L`$: in this sense $`L`$ becomes arbitrary so that $`n_0`$ and $`N`$ are in fact independent variables.

The physical reason of the hysteresis can be understood as follows. In the uniform state, a given particle interacts with a small (microscopic) number of particles ($`n_0\xi `$); on the contrary, in the localized state, a single particle interacts with a large number ($`N`$), macroscopic in the sense that all the particles effectively interact with anyone of them (note that this also originates from the fact that the particles are of zero radius). The condition for the uniform-to-localized transition is expressed by $`k_\mathrm{B}T_\mathrm{c}n_0\xi |v_0|`$ (see (40)). For the inverse transition, one can expect that a somewhat similar condition also holds true, so that $`T_\mathrm{c}^{}`$ is an increasing function of $`N`$ (and is independent of $`n_0`$). It is likely that with pointlike particles $`T_\mathrm{c}^{}`$ goes to infinity with $`N`$; on the contrary, with finite-size particles, one can figure out that $`T_\mathrm{c}^{}`$ saturates at very large $`N`$. As a whole, the hysteretic behaviour is a consequence of this parameter cross-over between the two kinds of steady states.

These facts are illustrated by looking at the width $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ of the cluster in the localized state, displayed in fig. 5 where $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ is plotted as a function of the relevant variables for the uniform state (as they naturally arise in the linear stability analysis of section III). Indeed, choosing $`N=50`$ or $`N=100`$ with fixed $`n_0`$ gives two different curves.

In the localized state, the width $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ of the cluster displays a cross-over between two regimes. On the low-$`T`$ side, one finds approximately $`\mathrm{\Delta }T^{1/2}`$. This behaviour is the same as for the harmonic case (see II B), which suggests that a gaussian approximation is valid in the low-$`T`$ region. Indeed, one can compare $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ with the analytic expression (18) obtained for the harmonic case (see figure 6). The agreement turns out to be quite good and this allows to claim that a gaussian approximation provides a very accurate description of the localized state arising in the low-$`T`$ region. For the second regime ($`T_\mathrm{c}<T<T_\mathrm{c}^{}`$), the width of the cluster becomes of the same order or even greater than the potential range, so that the effective potential cannot be well represented by a harmonic approximation. Indeed, the increase of the cluster width with $`T`$ no more displays a gaussian behaviour, but still follows a power law.

## V Dynamics of a system of particles interacting through the gaussian potential

In the previous mean-field analysis, it was shown that brownian particles interacting through a gaussian potential can have several steady states when $`T_\mathrm{c}<T<T_\mathrm{c}^{}`$. The system will converge towards one of those states, depending of the initial condition. It can be expected that, under a strong perturbation, the former is able to shift from one steady state to another, without changing the two phase space parameters ($`T/T_\mathrm{c}`$ and $`N`$).

We here give a few results obtained with the dynamical algorithm for a set of $`N=100`$ particles starting in the uniform state at $`T/T_\mathrm{c}=0.5`$. The length of the box is $`L=100\xi `$. This represents a case where the system, being in its stable uniform state at a given $`T>T_\mathrm{c}`$, is cooled infinitely quickly below its critical temperature.

We find that the dynamics is a succession of steps, each of them being a metastable state. Each plateau has a free energy lower than that of the preceding. The mean energy per particle is plotted in fig. 7 as a function of time. In order to be complete, some corresponding density profiles at different times are shown in fig. 8.

These plots show that the dynamics is a succession of metastable states with a given number of peaks of high density, ($`13`$-peak state, $`7`$-peak state, $`5`$-peak state, $`3`$-peak state). The lifetime of these states rapidly increases when the number of peaks gets lower (note the horizontal logarithmic scale in fig. 7).

Because of computational time, we were unable to obtain the $`1`$-peak state. From static computations, it is believed that this state is expected to be the final one, although there is no evidence that the two algorithms have the same attraction basins. Moreover, the $`1`$-peak state is not the only stable state: we have checked that also exist stationary $`2`$-peak, and $`3`$-peak states, a fact which seems nearly obvious on physical grounds since when the distance between two neighbouring peaks is much larger that the range $`\xi `$ no dynamics can occur.

From the time-dependent density profiles (fig. 8), we see that “nucleation” always occurs at the boundaries of the box. This is easily understood, since a particle near this boundary is pulled from one side only, as opposed to a particle located in the bulk. This effect would disappear with periodic boundary conditions, indicating that the nucleation can only occur around an inhomogeneity.

It is also interesting to follow the annihilation of the peaks. As an example, one goes from $`13`$ to $`7`$-peaks via the diffusion of the even peaks into the odd ones. Generally speaking, it turns out that the transition towards a state having fewer peaks proceeds through the absorption of “weak” peaks into strong ones. The actual value of the density between the peaks, even when it is extremely small, turns out to be of first importance in this mechanism of coalescence.

## VI Conclusion

In this paper, we have studied properties of the $`N`$-body Fokker-Planck equation within a mean field aproximation. Our aim was to analyse the properties of the steady state – which is a uniform density gas when interactions are set to zero – as a function of the features of the interaction potential. The linear stability analysis of the uniform state allowed to state the condition for a phase transition, as a result of the competing effects due to attractive interaction and to diffusive spreading. In particular, it was shown that the uniform phase is always unstable for non-summable attractive potentials, the critical temperature being infinite. In this latter case, analytical results have been given for specific potentials ($`1d`$-coulombian, harmonic, polynomials), all yielding an aggregated steady state.

For an attractive short ranged interaction, the above stability condition was interpreted as a phase transition occurring at a finite $`T_\mathrm{c}`$. This transition was more thoroughly studied by numerical computations in a definite case (gaussian potential) and turns out to be of the first order and hysteretic, the low temperature state being an inhomogeneous state having one or several peaks of high density.

The far-from-equilibrium dynamics was numerically computed for the gaussian potential, starting from the uniform state suddenly cooled below $`T_\mathrm{c}`$. The relaxation proceeds through a sequence of plateaux displaying a given decreasing number of peaks, each of the former having a longer and longer lifetime as time goes on. Each of these steps can be viewed as a metastable state.

Obviously enough, the considered problem requires further investigations. One of them is the relevance of mean field approach. If one expects that mean field results should be basically valid for long ranged potentials and high space dimensionality, their correctness for short range potential has to be checked by using more refined approximations from $`N`$-body general methods.

###### Acknowledgements.

We are indebted to Julien Vidal for a careful reading of the manuscript and for his most valuable remarks.