text:
# Global quantum Hall phase diagram from visibility diagrams

## 1 Introduction

In previous papers , we succeeded to classify the quantum Hall states by some visibility diagrams, and confronted them to some experimental features of the Quantum Hall Effect (QHE) . We were able to reproduce the Jain and Haldane hierarchies , and all the other observed hierarchical structures of the Hall states. A plot of the Hall resistivity versus the magnetic field was derived from these diagrams, which was in good agreement with the experimental Hall resistivity plot . Then, the stripe structure of these diagram was compared to experimental measurements of the mesoscopic conductance fluctuations in silicon MOSFETS . All these previous theoretical and experimental considerations gives us now a clearer physical interpretation of the proposed visibility diagrams. In particular, we were able to define a mapping between the axis of these diagrams and physical quantities as it will be recalled below.

In this letter, we will assume that this mapping is relevant. Then, it can be used to construct a global phase diagram for the QHE. This global phase diagram gives a hint of the respective positions of the integer and fractionnal states. It is clearly in favor of the “non floating” scheme advocated by some authors , and is in good agreement with many experimental observations made so far, at least for monolayer samples and if the effects of spin is neglected.

## 2 The visibility diagrams

We would like to recall here the general features of the visibility diagram, and their physical interpretation as has been analysed in . The visibility diagrams were constructed originally from considerations about some modular symmetries in the QHE , and specifically the possible relevance of the modular group $`\mathrm{\Gamma }(2)`$ as a classifying group for the quantum Hall states. These diagrams can in fact be completely characterized independently of any modular group. Because modular symmetry considerations will not be essential in the following analysis, we choose to introduce them without any reference to these groups.

From a mathematical viewpoint, the construction of the visibility diagrams is easy to achieve and is based on an famous arithmetical theorem which states that if $`p`$ and $`q`$ are relatively prime integers, then there exists two (necessary relatively prime) integers $`a`$ and $`b`$ such that $`paqb=1`$, and two others integers $`a^{}`$ and $`b^{}`$ (also relatively prime) such that $`pa^{}qb^{}=1`$.

The construction of the stripes in the visibility diagrams goes as follow. Consider the lattice of all the pairs of relatively prime positive integers $`(q,p)`$. It is convenient to distinguish the different pairs $`(q,p)`$ according to the even and/or odd character of its elements (hereafter called “parity configuration”), namely $`q`$ odd and $`p`$ odd, $`q`$ odd and $`p`$ even, or $`q`$ even and $`p`$ odd. Then, consider the first parity configuration of these pairs ($`q`$ odd and $`p`$ odd). For each of them, one can use the above mentionned theorem to introduce all the pairs $`(a,b)`$ such that $`paqb=1`$, and all the $`(a^{},b^{})`$ such that $`pa^{}qb^{}=1`$. It is very easy to show that the parity configuration of the pairs $`(a,b)`$ and $`(a^{},b^{})`$ are not odd-odd. These pairs can be displayed on the lattice, and are aligned on two half straight lines in this lattice. These two half straight lines define a stripe, which contains only the pair $`(q,p)`$. One obtains the “odd-odd visibility diagram” (figure 1a) by drawing the stripes associated to all the odd-odd pairs $`(q,p)`$ of the lattice. With the same procedure, it is possible to construct the “odd-even visibility diagram” (figure 1b) and the “even-odd visibility diagram” (figure 2a) if one considers exclusively the odd-even or the even-odd pairs $`(q,p)`$ of the lattice. Some usefull mathematical properties of these diagrams were presented in . Let us only recall here that the structure of these 3 diagrams is connected to the modular group $`\mathrm{\Gamma }(2)`$ (which, by the way, was our first motivation to construct these diagrams111The hypothesis of the group $`\mathrm{\Gamma }(2)`$ as a possible group of symmetry for the QHE was investigated in . There, it was showed that, in the holomorphic hypothesis, the renormalization group flows which preserve $`\mathrm{\Gamma }(2)`$, reproduce a lot of the feature of the transitions in the QHE, and in particular the observed cross-over form. Moreover, a comparison with some similar results  for the $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_0(2)`$ modular group were performed.), and that the (various proposed) hierarchies of the states of the QHE are encoded in the hierarchical structure of the stripes. In these visibility diagrams, each stripe is completely caracterized by a pair $`(q,p)`$, and we will index a stripe by this pair, or equivalently by its slope $`p/q`$. Obviously, the pair $`(q,p)`$ has the parity configuration of the visibility diagram considered.

In  and , we were able to confront these diagrams to some experimental features of the QHE, and to define a mapping between them and physical quantities. We refer to these papers for more details. What has been learned there, is that the quotient $`p/q`$ is nothing but the filling factor ($`\nu =N_c/N_\varphi `$, where $`N_c`$ is the number of charge carriers, and $`N_\varphi `$ is the number of magnetic fluxes). More importantly, the $`q`$ and $`p`$ axis of the diagrams can be mapped respectively to the magnetic field $`B`$ (proportionnal to the number of magnetic flux $`N_\varphi `$), and to the gate voltage $`V_g`$ of the Hall experiment. Recall that the gate voltage is used to control the number of charge carriers ($`N_c`$) in the Hall sample and that it can be qualitively related to the disorder by the simple relation: disorder $`1/N_c`$ (see for example in ). The $`qp`$ plane involved in the diagrams can then be viewed as the $`BV_g`$ plane of the QHE. The plateaus (the quantum Hall liquid states) of the QHE in the conductivity versus magnetic field plot were identified in this mapping with the stripes for which the filling factor is an odd denominator fraction. Notice that if one consider all these stripes in a single diagram (superposing the odd-odd and the odd-even diagrams), the stripes necesserally overlap. In the following section, we will use a general procedure to suppress the overlapping regions which is motivated by (and is consistant with) some experimental properties of the QHE. This will permit us to obtain a global phase diagram for the QHE.

## 3 The construction of the global phase diagram

The overlapping problem of the odd denominator stripes will be addressed using simple rules, some of which are based on experimental features of the QHE, some on minimal requirements. In particualr, these rules will give us the procedure to restrict the odd denominator stripes of the visibility diagram, in a consistent and general way to define the domain of the corresponding phase of the QHE.

First, recall that in any cross-over experiment, where the system goes from a (stable) quantum Hall state (plateau) to another one (transition in which a cross-over occurs between quantum Hall liquid states), there is always an extended region (even when the temperature goes to zero) where the system is neither in the first state nor in the second one (see for exemple  and references therein). This experimental observation suggests that the phases for the stable states (the plateaus) cannot have a common line in their respective boundaries, which would correspond to a sharp transition from a plateau to another one. This last statement defines our first rule. Notice that in the so far experimental and theoretical approaches of the global phase diagram of the QHE, the separation lines between the quantum Hall liquids were essentially fixed arbitrarely, in general by choosing the cross-over point of the transition as the frontier between two states. Assuming this, the ”states” between the quantum Hall liquid states are ignored, and the quantum Hall liquids are then adjacent. Here, the first rule permits one to take into account these intermediate phases.

Next, if one keeps in mind the above recalled physical identification of the axis of the visibility diagrams, at fixed disorder (i.e. for a given value $`p_0`$ of $`p`$), when the magnetic field is increased (i.e. $`q`$ is increased), one moves on these diagrams on a horizontal line $`p=p_0`$. For this value of the disorder, all the plateaus are not experimentally observed. Indeed, in our present scheme, this corresponds to the fact that these non observable plateaus, and therefore their (odd denominator) stripes, are associated to values of $`\nu =p_1/q_1`$ with $`p_1>p_0`$. They would become observable only for a lower value of the disorder. Consequently, the domain corresponding to a stable phase $`\nu =p_1/q_1`$ of the QHE must be in the upper half plane $`pp_1`$, and is not experimentally observable if the actual value of the disorder $`1/p_0`$ is greater than $`1/p_1`$. Now, a very similar analysis can be used to restrict this domain of a stable phase $`\nu =p_1/q_1`$ to the right half plane $`qq_1`$ (if one consider the magnetic field in place of the disorder in the previous discussion). This defines our second rule.

Finally, our third rule is a minimal requirement about the alterations to perform on each odd denominator stripes in order to satisfy the first and second rules. Indeed, one can shrink in many ways each of these stripes to achieve this goal. We will only propose the simplest and minimal one. In particular, the same modification will be applied to all the odd denominator stripes without exception.

The second rule suggests that the $`(q,p)`$ vertex indexing an odd denominator stripe, is the lower left wedge of the phase domain. Two odd denominator stripes can only overlap near their indexing vertices. Indeed, they separate when $`q`$ and $`p`$ goes to infinity. So the first rule applies only in the vicinity of these vertices. There, a very simple definition of the domain can be given to obey this first rule. The resulting domains are depicted on figure 2b. The procedure we used there, which is the simplest one according to the third rule, is the following: the new boundary of the domain of the odd denominator state joins the indexing vertex $`(q,p)`$ of an odd denominator stripe to the nearest point $`(a,b)`$ on the boundary of the stripe with $`a`$ odd, $`aq`$ and $`bp`$. Notice that imposing $`a`$ to be odd has the effect to suppress some common lines in the boundaries of adjacent stripes. This is necessary according to the first rule.

Figure 2b represents the proposed domains of the stable states (odd denominator filling fraction) of the QHE in the $`qp`$ plane222Notice that this diagram has the same symmetries than the diagram obtained by superposing the odd-odd and odd-even visibility diagrams. So the conclusions of  about the possible groups of symmetrie for the QHE are not questionned by these modifications.. The construction of the global phase diagram of the QHE is based on this last figure and on the previous mapping between the visibility diagram and the physical quantities relevant to the QHE. Obviously, without a microscopic model, finer details of this global phase diagram, for instance the exact form of the boundaries of the phases, cannot be obtained from this approach. What we obtain here is a global architecture of the phases, in particular their relative positions, and the topology of their boundaries. The global phase diagram of the QHE is generally drawn in the disorder (identified with the $`1/p`$ variable) versus the inverse filling factor (identified with the variable $`q/p`$) plane. The global phase diagram is then obtained from figure 2b using the mapping $`(q,p)(q/p,1/p)`$. The result is presented in figure 3, where of course only a finite number of phases is depicted. Some dash lines of figure 2b (even denominator metallic states) are also reported on this diagram.

## 4 Comments on the global phase diagram

We would like now to comment the global phase diagram that we obtained.

From the very construction, and the general properties of the visibility diagrams, the left zone of the diagram is an insulator phase (corresponding to $`\nu 1/0`$). The upper region $`1/p>1`$ can also be identified with an insulator. It has been suggested in the litterature  that these two insulator states could be different phases of the QHE. If these two insulator states really exist, they should be associated somehow with the two stripes indexed by $`\nu =1/0`$ (vertical stripe) and $`\nu =0/1`$ (horizontal stripe). These two stripes have not been drawn on any figure presented here, but they are nevertheless apparent on figure 2b as white regions along the $`p`$ and $`q`$ axis.

Another global phase diagram for the QHE was proposed by Kivelson, Lee and Zhang in . Their theoretical construction was based on the law of corresponding states. The general structure of our phase diagram bears some similarities with their phase diagram, in particular the location of the quantum Hall liquid states are roughly the same. Their shaded regions (figure 1 in ) correspond to our “white” regions ; they are centered about the half denominator states (the quantum Hall metallic states). As noticed in the previous section (first rule), their quantum Hall liquid states are adjacent, which is not the case in our diagram. This is due to the definition they take for the frontiers between two quantum Hall liquid states. The main structural difference between our diagram and the KLZ one lies in the possible direct transition between integer quantum Hall states and insulator, and their counterparts in other regions of the diagram (phases $`\nu =2,3,2/3,3/9,3/7,\mathrm{}`$). These transitions are strictly forbidden in the KLZ diagram, which is essentially the floating property. One other theoretical phase diagram has been suggested by Halperin, Lee and Read in . This diagram has some very general common features with the KLZ one, but has the noticeable difference that it allows the direct transitions of the type integer quantum Hall states $``$ insulator, which are also permitted in our phase diagram. Our figure 3 is actually very similar, in many respects, to the figure 4 of , in particular, they is no floating in either one.

Concerning the experimental situation, from an analysis of several observed direct transitions, the authors of  proposed a synthetic phase diagram. The transitions stemming from the topology of our phase diagram are in good agreement with this general experimental picture shown there (figure 4 in ), except for the possible oscillations of the integer to insulator boundaries which are discussed in their paper. The author of , presented a more recent experimental phase diagram for the integer QHE. The topology of the integer phase diagram which can be extracted from our figure 3 is the same as their one. Notice that in this paper, the possible oscillations of the integer to insulator boundaries seems to be smoother compared to those appearing in . Recent numerical simulations based on the TBM Hamiltonian gave rise to an integer phase diagram  very similar to the experimental one obtained by Hilke et al. In all these proposed phase diagrams, direct transitions integer quantum Hall states $``$ insulator do exist333In , some numerical simulations based on an edge channels model, confirm also this feature.. Let us stress the fact that the experimental situation is not yet cleared up . In particular, the exact shape of the frontiers between the different quantum Hall phases seems to be notably dependant on the nature of the sample (MOSFETs, p-GaAs/AlGaAs, or p-SiGe) and/or on possible spin effects.

So far, we have insisted on the quantum Hall liquid states (odd denominator fractions). Concerning the metallic states (even denominator fractions), they appear in our phase diagram as simple straight lines surrounded by a whole family of unresolved states (white triangles in figure 3) which are met in a typical cross-over transition from a quantum Hall liquid state to an other.

As a final remark, let us notice that there are some trajectories through the phase diagram which met only the integer quantum Hall liquid phases. This is indeed the case for any straigth line through the origin with slope between $`1/3`$ and $`1`$ (figure 3). These trajectories can be generated experimentally if one increase the disorder, by acting on the gate voltage, while keeping fixed the magnetic field. This was actually the situation of the original integer quantum Hall experiment .

## 5 Conclusion

In this letter we have proposed a derivation of the global phase diagram for the QHE, based on visibility diagrams that we introduced in . This phase diagram is in very good agreement with the experimental properties so far collected on the phases of the QHE and on their transitions. It is very close to one of the theoretical phase diagram which has been proposed in the litterature . It remains to explain the origin of this construction, in particular why some so simple principles give rise to such an accurate diagram. This will probably be achieved using either some workable mesoscopic phenomenological model (showing some modular symmetries) or some microscopic approach.


format: text

text:
# Search for Quark-Lepton Compositeness and a Heavy 𝑊' Boson Using the 𝑒𝜈 Channel in 𝑝𝑝̄ Collisions at √𝑠=1.8 TeV

## Abstract

We present searches for quark-lepton compositeness and a heavy $`W^{}`$ boson at high electron-neutrino transverse mass. We use $``$110 pb-1 of data collected in $`p\overline{p}`$ collisions at $`\sqrt{s}`$ = 1.8 TeV  by the CDF collaboration during 1992–95. The data are consistent with standard model expectations. Limits are set on the quark-lepton compositeness scale $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ and the ratio of partial cross sections $`\sigma (W^{}e\nu )/\sigma (We\nu )`$. The cross section ratio is used to obtain a lower limit on the mass of a $`W^{}`$ boson with standard model couplings. We exclude $`\mathrm{\Lambda }<2.81`$ TeV and a $`W^{}`$ boson with mass below 754 GeV/c2 at the 95% confidence level. We combine the $`W^{}`$ mass limit with our previously published limit obtained using the muon channel, to exclude a $`W^{}`$ boson with mass below 786 GeV/c2 at the 95% confidence level.

T. Affolder,23 H. Akimoto,45 A. Akopian,37 M. G. Albrow,11 P. Amaral,8 D. Amidei,25 K. Anikeev,24 J. Antos,1 G. Apollinari,11 T. Arisawa,45 A. Artikov,9 T. Asakawa,43 W. Ashmanskas,8 F. Azfar,30 P. Azzi-Bacchetta,31 N. Bacchetta,31 H. Bachacou,23 S. Bailey,16 P. de Barbaro,36 A. Barbaro-Galtieri,23 V. E. Barnes,35 B. A. Barnett,19 S. Baroiant,5 M. Barone,13 G. Bauer,24 F. Bedeschi,33 S. Belforte,42 W. H. Bell,15 G. Bellettini,33 J. Bellinger,46 D. Benjamin,10 J. Bensinger,4 A. Beretvas,11 J. P. Berge,11 J. Berryhill,8 A. Bhatti,37 M. Binkley,11 D. Bisello,31 M. Bishai,11 R. E. Blair,2 C. Blocker,4 K. Bloom,25 B. Blumenfeld,19 S. R. Blusk,36 A. Bocci,37 A. Bodek,36 W. Bokhari,32 G. Bolla,35 Y. Bonushkin,6 D. Bortoletto,35 J. Boudreau,34 A. Brandl,27 S. van den Brink,19 C. Bromberg,26 M. Brozovic,10 E. Brubaker,23 N. Bruner,27 E. Buckley-Geer,11 J. Budagov,9 H. S. Budd,36 K. Burkett,16 G. Busetto,31 A. Byon-Wagner,11 K. L. Byrum,2 S. Cabrera,10 P. Calafiura,23 M. Campbell,25 W. Carithers,23 J. Carlson,25 D. Carlsmith,46 W. Caskey,5 A. Castro,3 D. Cauz,42 A. Cerri,33 A. W. Chan,1 P. S. Chang,1 P. T. Chang,1 J. Chapman,25 C. Chen,32 Y. C. Chen,1 M. -T. Cheng,1 M. Chertok,5 G. Chiarelli,33 I. Chirikov-Zorin,9 G. Chlachidze,9 F. Chlebana,11 L. Christofek,18 M. L. Chu,1 Y. S. Chung,36 C. I. Ciobanu,28 A. G. Clark,14 A. Connolly,23 J. Conway,38 M. Cordelli,13 J. Cranshaw,40 R. Cropp,41 R. Culbertson,11 D. Dagenhart,44 S. D’Auria,15 F. DeJongh,11 S. Dell’Agnello,13 M. Dell’Orso,33 L. Demortier,37 M. Deninno,3 P. F. Derwent,11 T. Devlin,38 J. R. Dittmann,11 A. Dominguez,23 S. Donati,33 J. Done,39 M. D’Onofrio,33 T. Dorigo,16 N. Eddy,18 K. Einsweiler,23 J. E. Elias,11 E. Engels, Jr.,34 R. Erbacher,11 D. Errede,18 S. Errede,18 Q. Fan,36 R. G. Feild,47 J. P. Fernandez,11 C. Ferretti,33 R. D. Field,12 I. Fiori,3 B. Flaugher,11 G. W. Foster,11 M. Franklin,16 J. Freeman,11 J. Friedman,24 Y. Fukui,22 I. Furic,24 S. Galeotti,33 A. Gallas,(∗∗) 16 M. Gallinaro,37 T. Gao,32 M. Garcia-Sciveres,23 A. F. Garfinkel,35 P. Gatti,31 C. Gay,47 D. W. Gerdes,25 P. Giannetti,33 P. Giromini,13 V. Glagolev,9 D. Glenzinski,11 M. Gold,27 J. Goldstein,11 I. Gorelov,27 A. T. Goshaw,10 Y. Gotra,34 K. Goulianos,37 C. Green,35 G. Grim,5 P. Gris,11 L. Groer,38 C. Grosso-Pilcher,8 M. Guenther,35 G. Guillian,25 J. Guimaraes da Costa,16 R. M. Haas,12 C. Haber,23 S. R. Hahn,11 C. Hall,16 T. Handa,17 R. Handler,46 W. Hao,40 F. Happacher,13 K. Hara,43 A. D. Hardman,35 R. M. Harris,11 F. Hartmann,20 K. Hatakeyama,37 J. Hauser,6 J. Heinrich,32 A. Heiss,20 M. Herndon,19 C. Hill,5 K. D. Hoffman,35 C. Holck,32 R. Hollebeek,32 L. Holloway,18 R. Hughes,28 J. Huston,26 J. Huth,16 H. Ikeda,43 J. Incandela,11 G. Introzzi,33 J. Iwai,45 Y. Iwata,17 E. James,25 M. Jones,32 U. Joshi,11 H. Kambara,14 T. Kamon,39 T. Kaneko,43 K. Karr,44 H. Kasha,47 Y. Kato,29 T. A. Keaffaber,35 K. Kelley,24 M. Kelly,25 R. D. Kennedy,11 R. Kephart,11 D. Khazins,10 T. Kikuchi,43 B. Kilminster,36 B. J. Kim,21 D. H. Kim,21 H. S. Kim,18 M. J. Kim,21 S. B. Kim,21 S. H. Kim,43 Y. K. Kim,23 M. Kirby,10 M. Kirk,4 L. Kirsch,4 S. Klimenko,12 P. Koehn,28 K. Kondo,45 J. Konigsberg,12 A. Korn,24 A. Korytov,12 A. V. Kotwal,10 E. Kovacs,2 J. Kroll,32 M. Kruse,10 S. E. Kuhlmann,2 K. Kurino,17 T. Kuwabara,43 A. T. Laasanen,35 N. Lai,8 S. Lami,37 S. Lammel,11 J. Lancaster,10 M. Lancaster,23 R. Lander,5 A. Lath,38 G. Latino,33 T. LeCompte,2 A. M. Lee IV,10 K. Lee,40 S. Leone,33 J. D. Lewis,11 M. Lindgren,6 T. M. Liss,18 J. B. Liu,36 Y. C. Liu,1 D. O. Litvintsev,11 O. Lobban,40 N. Lockyer,32 J. Loken,30 M. Loreti,31 D. Lucchesi,31 P. Lukens,11 S. Lusin,46 L. Lyons,30 J. Lys,23 R. Madrak,16 K. Maeshima,11 P. Maksimovic,16 L. Malferrari,3 M. Mangano,33 M. Mariotti,31 G. Martignon,31 A. Martin,47 J. A. J. Matthews,27 J. Mayer,41 P. Mazzanti,3 K. S. McFarland,36 P. McIntyre,39 E. McKigney,32 M. Menguzzato,31 A. Menzione,33 C. Mesropian,37 A. Meyer,11 T. Miao,11 R. Miller,26 J. S. Miller,25 H. Minato,43 S. Miscetti,13 M. Mishina,22 G. Mitselmakher,12 N. Moggi,3 E. Moore,27 R. Moore,25 Y. Morita,22 T. Moulik,35 M. Mulhearn,24 A. Mukherjee,11 T. Muller,20 A. Munar,33 P. Murat,11 S. Murgia,26 J. Nachtman,6 V. Nagaslaev,40 S. Nahn,47 H. Nakada,43 I. Nakano,17 C. Nelson,11 T. Nelson,11 C. Neu,28 D. Neuberger,20 C. Newman-Holmes,11 C.-Y. P. Ngan,24 H. Niu,4 L. Nodulman,2 A. Nomerotski,12 S. H. Oh,10 Y. D. Oh,21 T. Ohmoto,17 T. Ohsugi,17 R. Oishi,43 T. Okusawa,29 J. Olsen,46 W. Orejudos,23 C. Pagliarone,33 F. Palmonari,33 R. Paoletti,33 V. Papadimitriou,40 D. Partos,4 J. Patrick,11 G. Pauletta,42 M. Paulini,(∗) 23 C. Paus,24 D. Pellett,5 L. Pescara,31 T. J. Phillips,10 G. Piacentino,33 K. T. Pitts,18 A. Pompos,35 L. Pondrom,46 G. Pope,34 M. Popovic,41 F. Prokoshin,9 J. Proudfoot,2 F. Ptohos,13 O. Pukhov,9 G. Punzi,33 A. Rakitine,24 F. Ratnikov,38 D. Reher,23 A. Reichold,30 A. Ribon,31 W. Riegler,16 F. Rimondi,3 L. Ristori,33 M. Riveline,41 W. J. Robertson,10 A. Robinson,41 T. Rodrigo,7 S. Rolli,44 L. Rosenson,24 R. Roser,11 R. Rossin,31 C. Rott,35 A. Roy,35 A. Ruiz,7 A. Safonov,5 R. St. Denis,15 W. K. Sakumoto,36 D. Saltzberg,6 C. Sanchez,28 A. Sansoni,13 L. Santi,42 H. Sato,43 P. Savard,41 P. Schlabach,11 E. E. Schmidt,11 M. P. Schmidt,47 M. Schmitt,(∗∗) 16 L. Scodellaro,31 A. Scott,6 A. Scribano,33 S. Segler,11 S. Seidel,27 Y. Seiya,43 A. Semenov,9 F. Semeria,3 T. Shah,24 M. D. Shapiro,23 P. F. Shepard,34 T. Shibayama,43 M. Shimojima,43 M. Shochet,8 A. Sidoti,31 J. Siegrist,23 A. Sill,40 P. Sinervo,41 P. Singh,18 A. J. Slaughter,47 K. Sliwa,44 C. Smith,19 F. D. Snider,11 A. Solodsky,37 J. Spalding,11 T. Speer,14 P. Sphicas,24 F. Spinella,33 M. Spiropulu,16 L. Spiegel,11 J. Steele,46 A. Stefanini,33 J. Strologas,18 F. Strumia, 14 D. Stuart,11 K. Sumorok,24 T. Suzuki,43 T. Takano,29 R. Takashima,17 K. Takikawa,43 P. Tamburello,10 M. Tanaka,43 B. Tannenbaum,6 M. Tecchio,25 R. Tesarek,11 P. K. Teng,1 K. Terashi,37 S. Tether,24 A. S. Thompson,15 R. Thurman-Keup,2 P. Tipton,36 S. Tkaczyk,11 D. Toback,39 K. Tollefson,36 A. Tollestrup,11 D. Tonelli,33 H. Toyoda,29 W. Trischuk,41 J. F. de Troconiz,16 J. Tseng,24 N. Turini,33 F. Ukegawa,43 T. Vaiciulis,36 J. Valls,38 S. Vejcik III,11 G. Velev,11 G. Veramendi,23 R. Vidal,11 I. Vila,7 R. Vilar,7 I. Volobouev,23 M. von der Mey,6 D. Vucinic,24 R. G. Wagner,2 R. L. Wagner,11 N. B. Wallace,38 Z. Wan,38 C. Wang,10 M. J. Wang,1 B. Ward,15 S. Waschke,15 T. Watanabe,43 D. Waters,30 T. Watts,38 R. Webb,39 H. Wenzel,20 W. C. Wester III,11 A. B. Wicklund,2 E. Wicklund,11 T. Wilkes,5 H. H. Williams,32 P. Wilson,11 B. L. Winer,28 D. Winn,25 S. Wolbers,11 D. Wolinski,25 J. Wolinski,26 S. Wolinski,25 S. Worm,27 X. Wu,14 J. Wyss,33 W. Yao,23 G. P. Yeh,11 P. Yeh,1 J. Yoh,11 C. Yosef,26 T. Yoshida,29 I. Yu,21 S. Yu,32 Z. Yu,47 A. Zanetti,42 F. Zetti,23 and S. Zucchelli3

(CDF Collaboration)

1 Institute of Physics, Academia Sinica, Taipei, Taiwan 11529, Republic of China

2 Argonne National Laboratory, Argonne, Illinois 60439

3 Istituto Nazionale di Fisica Nucleare, University of Bologna, I-40127 Bologna, Italy

4 Brandeis University, Waltham, Massachusetts 02254

5 University of California at Davis, Davis, California 95616

6 University of California at Los Angeles, Los Angeles, California 90024

7 Instituto de Fisica de Cantabria, CSIC-University of Cantabria, 39005 Santander, Spain

8 Enrico Fermi Institute, University of Chicago, Chicago, Illinois 60637

9 Joint Institute for Nuclear Research, RU-141980 Dubna, Russia

10 Duke University, Durham, North Carolina 27708

11 Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory, Batavia, Illinois 60510

12 University of Florida, Gainesville, Florida 32611

13 Laboratori Nazionali di Frascati, Istituto Nazionale di Fisica Nucleare, I-00044 Frascati, Italy

14 University of Geneva, CH-1211 Geneva 4, Switzerland

15 Glasgow University, Glasgow G12 8QQ, United Kingdom
16 Harvard University, Cambridge, Massachusetts 02138

17 Hiroshima University, Higashi-Hiroshima 724, Japan

18 University of Illinois, Urbana, Illinois 61801

19 The Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, Maryland 21218

20 Institut für Experimentelle Kernphysik, Universität Karlsruhe, 76128 Karlsruhe, Germany

21 Center for High Energy Physics: Kyungpook National University, Taegu 702-701; Seoul National University, Seoul 151-742; and SungKyunKwan University, Suwon 440-746; Korea

22 High Energy Accelerator Research Organization (KEK), Tsukuba, Ibaraki 305, Japan

23 Ernest Orlando Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, Berkeley, California 94720

24 Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, Massachusetts 02139

25 University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan 48109

26 Michigan State University, East Lansing, Michigan 48824

27 University of New Mexico, Albuquerque, New Mexico 87131

28 The Ohio State University, Columbus, Ohio 43210

29 Osaka City University, Osaka 588, Japan

30 University of Oxford, Oxford OX1 3RH, United Kingdom

31 Universita di Padova, Istituto Nazionale di Fisica Nucleare, Sezione di Padova, I-35131 Padova, Italy

32 University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19104

33 Istituto Nazionale di Fisica Nucleare, University and Scuola Normale Superiore of Pisa, I-56100 Pisa, Italy

34 University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania 15260

35 Purdue University, West Lafayette, Indiana 47907

36 University of Rochester, Rochester, New York 14627

37 Rockefeller University, New York, New York 10021

38 Rutgers University, Piscataway, New Jersey 08855

39 Texas A&M University, College Station, Texas 77843

40 Texas Tech University, Lubbock, Texas 79409

41 Institute of Particle Physics, University of Toronto, Toronto M5S 1A7, Canada

42 Istituto Nazionale di Fisica Nucleare, University of Trieste/ Udine, Italy

43 University of Tsukuba, Tsukuba, Ibaraki 305, Japan

44 Tufts University, Medford, Massachusetts 02155

45 Waseda University, Tokyo 169, Japan

46 University of Wisconsin, Madison, Wisconsin 53706

47 Yale University, New Haven, Connecticut 06520

(∗) Now at Carnegie Mellon University, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania 15213

(∗∗) Now at Northwestern University, Evanston, Illinois 60208

The standard model (SM) gives a good description of nature in terms of the fundamental fermions and their interactions via gauge bosons. However, the SM is not expected to be a complete theory. For example, it does not explain the number of fermion families or their mass hierarchy. It also does not provide a unified description of all gauge symmetries. Compositeness models postulate constituents of the SM fermions and new strong dynamics that bind these constituents . Other extensions of the SM postulate larger gauge groups and therefore new forces associated with additional charged gauge bosons, which we generically call $`W^{}`$. For instance, the left-right symmetric model  expands the $`SU(2)_L\times U(1)`$ electroweak group to $`SU(2)_L\times SU(2)_R\times U(1)`$, predicting an additional right-handed charged gauge boson.

At center-of-mass energies much smaller than the compositeness energy scale $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$, interactions between composite quarks and/or leptons have been parameterized by effective four-fermion contact interactions . Atomic parity violation experiments have set stringent, though model-dependent limits on quark-lepton compositeness in the neutral current channel . Direct searches have set limits on $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ in the range 2.5–6.1 TeV  in a broad class of neutral current models. In this Letter, we present the first results of a search for compositeness in the charged current channel ($`q\overline{q}^{}e\nu `$) using the $`e\nu `$ final state.

The $`e\nu `$ final state is also sensitive to the direct production and decay of a $`W^{}`$ boson. Previous indirect searches based on $`\mu `$ decay, the $`K_LK_S`$ mass difference, neutrinoless double beta decay, and studies of $`b`$ particles have resulted in stringent model-dependent limits on possible $`W^{}`$ bosons . Direct searches in various decay modes have produced lower limits on the $`W^{}`$ mass, $`m_W^{}`$. The best limit of $`m_W^{}>720`$ GeV/c2 in the $`W^{}e\nu `$ channel  assumes a light and stable neutrino, standard model couplings for the $`W^{}`$ to fermions, and suppressed $`W^{}WZ`$ decays, as in extended gauge models . In this Letter, we set upper limits on the ratio of partial cross sections $`\sigma (W^{}e\nu )/\sigma (We\nu )`$ under the same assumptions. We use the latter to obtain the most stringent lower limit on $`m_W^{}`$. We also present the combined $`W^{}`$ mass limit with our previously published limit obtained using the muon channel .

We use $``$110 pb-1 of data collected in $`p\overline{p}`$ collisions at $`\sqrt{s}=1.8`$ TeV by the Collider Detector at Fermilab  during 1992–95. The detector includes a tracking system immersed in a 1.4 T magnetic field, scintillator-based sampling electromagnetic and hadronic calorimeters, and a muon detector. For this analysis, electron candidates are accepted in the pseudorapidity range $`0.05<`$ $``$$`\eta `$$``$ $`<1.0`$, where $`\eta =\mathrm{log}\mathrm{tan}(\theta /2)`$, and $`\theta `$ is the polar angle with respect to the beam axis. Electrons detected near the fiducial edges of the calorimeter are removed to ensure uniform calorimeter response. We use a combination of electron and neutrino triggers to obtain an efficiency exceeding 99% for the high transverse mass $`e\nu `$ final states that pass our offline selection criteria.

After offline reconstruction, the electromagnetic calorimeter cluster with the highest transverse energy ($`E_TE\mathrm{sin}\theta `$) in the event must satisfy these requirements: (i) the electron must deposit most  of its energy in the electromagnetic calorimeter, (ii) a track in the central drift chamber must match the calorimeter cluster in position, (iii) the electron must be isolated in a cone of radius $`R\sqrt{\mathrm{\Delta }\eta ^2+\mathrm{\Delta }\varphi ^2}=0.4`$, such that the fractional excess transverse energy in the cone, $`\frac{E_T^{tot}(R=0.4)E_T^e}{E_T^e}<0.1`$, where $`E_T^{tot}`$ and $`E_T^e`$ are the total and electron transverse energies respectively. The kinematic cuts used to define the data sample are $`E_T^e>30`$ GeV, the transverse momentum ($`p_T`$) of the associated track $`p_T^e>`$ 13 GeV/c, the missing transverse energy $`\overline{)}E_T`$ $`>30`$ GeV, and the electron-neutrino transverse mass $`m_T(e\nu )>`$ 50 GeV/c2, where $`m_T(e\nu )=\sqrt{2E_T^e\overline{)}E_T(1\mathrm{cos}\varphi _{e\nu })}`$, and $`\varphi _{e\nu }`$ is the azimuthal angle between the electron and the $`\overline{)}E_T`$ direction. The neutrino transverse momentum is identified with $`\overline{)}E_T`$ by requiring transverse momentum balance in the event. Electron identification cuts based on $`E/p`$ (ratio of calorimeter energy to matched track momentum) and calorimeter energy profiles, which are imposed for $`E_T^e<50`$ GeV to suppress jet misidentification backgrounds, are released for $`E_T^e>50`$ GeV to ensure maximum signal efficiency. A total of 31,436 events pass our selection criteria.

We use the PYTHIA  program to compute the compositeness and $`W^{}`$ signal processes. The detector response is simulated using a parameterized Monte Carlo program. The electromagnetic calorimeter sampling term is derived from test beam data. The underlying event contribution to the electron energy resolution is derived from $`We\nu `$ collider data. The constant term in the electromagnetic resolution is tuned to reproduce the observed width of the $`Zee`$ mass peak. The electromagnetic energy scale is set so that the reconstructed $`Z`$ boson mass agrees with the world-average $`Z`$ mass . The hadronic response and resolution are tuned by studying the $`p_T`$ balance in $`Zee`$ events.

In this analysis we normalize the number of SM background Monte Carlo events after detector simulation to the large inclusive $`W`$ boson sample in the data. Thus we are analysing the shape of the $`e\nu `$ transverse mass distribution, and are insensitive to the uncertainty in the integrated luminosity of the data and to the overall efficiency. The efficiency of the additional electron identification cuts applied for $`E_T^e<50`$ GeV is determined using $`Zee`$ data where one of the electrons is tagged. The second electron then provides an unbiased sample with which to measure the efficiencies. Background subtraction is performed using the sidebands of the $`Z`$ boson mass distribution. The combined efficiency of these additional cuts is (95.8$`\pm `$0.3)%, relative to the full efficiency at high $`E_T^e`$.

The most important sources of misidentification background to $`p\overline{p}e\nu +X`$ are (i) QCD multijet events, where a jet is misidentified as an electron and there is sufficient energy mismeasurement to create significant $`\overline{)}E_T`$, and (ii) $`Zee`$ events where one electron is lost or misreconstructed. The electromagnetic energy in a jet which has been misidentified as an electron is likely to be non-isolated. We select a representative sample of misidentified electrons by making the electron identification cuts on the base sample without the isolation cut, and then selecting non-isolated candidates. The relative normalization of this sample to the jet background in the signal sample is obtained from a “pure-jet” sample. The “pure-jet” sample is obtained in the same way as the signal sample except $`\overline{)}E_T`$$`<10`$ GeV, which excludes almost all $`W`$ events. This technique assumes that the isolation for a jet is independent of $`\overline{)}E_T`$. The systematic uncertainty of 30% on the jet misidentication background is estimated by studying the correlation between isolation and $`\overline{)}E_T`$. The $`Zee`$ background is estimated using a Monte Carlo sample of $`Zee`$ events, passed through a full detector simulation and reconstructed like the data. The sytematic uncertainty of 23% on the $`Zee`$ background is estimated by varying the detector response to electrons near the fiducial edges of the calorimeter. Other systematic uncertainties, indicated in Table II, are derived by varying the parameters in the Monte Carlo simulation. The uncertainty due to parton distribution functions is taken to be identical with our published $`W^{}\mu \nu `$ analysis .

Other high $`p_T`$ processes also contribute to $`e\nu `$ final states. Using PYTHIA, we evaluate the following background processes, $`We\nu `$ (dominant), $`W\tau \nu e\nu X`$, $`t\overline{t}e\nu X`$, $`WWe\nu X`$, $`WZe\nu X`$, $`ZZe\nu X`$ and $`\gamma ^{}/Z\tau \tau e\nu X`$. We pass these Monte Carlo events through the parameterized detector simulation to estimate their contribution. These physics backgrounds dominate over the misidentification backgrounds at high $`e\nu `$ transverse mass, due to the presence of real neutrino(s) producing large $`\overline{)}E_T`$. For example, the jet and $`Zee`$ misidentification background fractions amount to 25% and 3% respectively for $`m_T(e\nu )>150`$ GeV/c2.

Figure 1 shows the transverse mass distribution of the data events normalized to the bin width. Also shown is the expectation based on SM processes and detector backgrounds. We apply a mass-dependent $`K`$-factor (defined as the ratio of the next-to-next-to leading order (NNLO) and the leading-order (LO) Drell-Yan cross section calculations from Ref. ) to the LO PYTHIA calculation. The $`K`$-factor varies between 1.24 at 80 GeV/c2 and 1.65 at 800 GeV/c2. The effects of the detector acceptance and response have been folded into the theoretical prediction. Table I shows the expected and the observed number of events in the high transverse mass bins. There is good agreement between the data and the expectation. Also shown are all backgrounds excluding the dominant SM $`We\nu `$ process, and the expectation of the compositeness model with $`\mathrm{\Lambda }=2`$ TeV.

To set a limit on the compositeness scale $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$, we generate Monte Carlo events for the compositeness process using PYTHIA, corrected with the $`K`$-factor. We perform a Bayesian analysis  of the shape of the $`m_T`$ distribution of events. The expected number of events in the $`k^{\mathrm{th}}`$ transverse mass bin is denoted by $`N_\mathrm{\Lambda }^k=b^k+ϵ^k\sigma _\mathrm{\Lambda }^k`$, where $`\sigma _\mathrm{\Lambda }^k`$ is the predicted cross section for a given scale $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$, and $`ϵ^k`$ and $`b^k`$ denote the total acceptance and remaining backgrounds in the $`k^{\mathrm{th}}`$ bin. The prediction for the number of events, including all backgrounds, is normalized to the observed number of events for $`m_T(e\nu )<150`$ GeV/c2. Given the data $`(D)`$, we compute the posterior probability distribution for $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ according to

$`P(\mathrm{\Lambda }D)={\displaystyle \frac{1}{A}}{\displaystyle 𝑑b𝑑ϵ\underset{k=1}{\overset{n}{}}\left[\frac{e^{N_\mathrm{\Lambda }^k}N_{\mathrm{\Lambda }}^{k}{}_{}{}^{N_o^k}}{N_o^k!}P(b^k,ϵ^k)\right]P(\mathrm{\Lambda })}.`$ (1)
$`N_o^k`$ denotes the observed number of events. We take the prior distribution $`P(b^k,ϵ^k)`$ of the nuisance parameters $`b`$ and $`ϵ`$ to be Gaussian with the r.m.s. given by their total uncertainties. The bin-to-bin correlations in the uncertainty on the acceptance and background are taken into account. We make the conventional choice for the prior distribution $`P(\mathrm{\Lambda })`$ to be uniform in 1/$`\mathrm{\Lambda }^2`$. The 95% C.L. lower limit is defined by $`_\mathrm{\Lambda }^{\mathrm{}}P(\mathrm{\Lambda }^{}D)𝑑\mathrm{\Lambda }^{}=0.95`$, yielding $`\mathrm{\Lambda }>2.81`$ TeV. The expected limit, obtained when the observed number of events is set equal to the expected number, is $`\mathrm{\Lambda }>2.70`$ TeV. Varying the choice of the prior distribution $`P(\mathrm{\Lambda })`$ changes the limit by 10%.

To set a limit on the mass of a $`W^{}`$ boson, we compute the Poisson probability for the observed number of events given $`N_{\mathrm{expected}}=N_{\mathrm{background}}+N_W^{}`$. The Poisson probability is computed separately in three search windows: $`0.5M_W^{}<m_T<0.65M_W^{}`$, $`0.65M_W^{}<m_T<0.8M_W^{}`$ and $`0.8M_W^{}<m_T<1.1M_W^{}`$, and then the probabilities are combined. The use of three windows allows us to exploit the difference in the shape of the $`W^{}`$ signal and background $`m_T`$ distributions. Uncertainties in the backgrounds and signal acceptance are incorporated by convoluting the probability $`P(N_W^{})`$ over Gaussian fluctuations in these parameters, taking correlations across bins into account. The 95% C.L. upper limit on the number of $`W^{}`$ signal events, $`N_W^{}^{95}`$, is defined by $`_0^{N_W^{}^{95}}P(N_W^{})d(N_W^{})=0.95`$. The limit $`N_W^{}^{95}`$ may be expressed as a 95% C.L. limit on the ratio $`\sigma B(W^{}e\nu )/\sigma B(We\nu )`$ using

$`\left({\displaystyle \frac{\sigma B(W^{}e\nu )}{\sigma B(We\nu )}}\right)_{95}={\displaystyle \frac{N_W^{}^{95}A_W}{A_W^{}N_W}}`$ (2)
where $`N_W`$ is the observed number of SM $`W`$ events and $`A_W^{}`$($`A_W`$) is the total acceptance for $`W^{}e\nu `$ ($`We\nu `$) decays. The 95% C.L. upper limit on $`\sigma B(W^{}e\nu )/\sigma B(We\nu )`$ is plotted as a function of $`M_W^{}`$ in Fig. 2 together with the theory curve from PYTHIA 6.129, assuming standard model couplings and including the $`K`$-factor. From the intersection of the two curves, a $`W^{}`$ boson with mass $`m_W^{}<754`$ GeV/c2 is excluded at 95% C.L. The expected limit in this case is 748 GeV/c2. We combine this result with our previously published result on a $`W^{}`$ boson using the $`\mu \nu `$ final state . Taking the PDF uncertainty to be fully correlated between the two analyses and with the same model assumptions, we obtain the combined limit excluding $`m_W^{}<786`$ GeV/c2 at the 95% C.L.

In conclusion, we find no significant deviation between the measured $`e\nu `$ transverse mass distribution at high transverse mass and the SM prediction. We have used the data to exclude the quark-lepton compositeness scale $`\mathrm{\Lambda }<2.81`$ TeV, in the context of an effective contact interaction. We set limits on the ratio of the cross section times branching ratio to $`e\nu `$ of a $`W^{}`$ boson to a standard model $`W`$ boson. We use the latter to exclude a $`W^{}`$ boson with SM couplings and mass $`m_W^{}<754`$ GeV/c2. Combining with our muon channel result, we exclude $`m_W^{}<786`$ GeV/c2 at the 95% C.L.

We thank T. Sj$`\ddot{\mathrm{o}}`$strand for discussions regarding PYTHIA and W. L. Van Neerven for providing the code to compute the NNLO SM Drell-Yan cross section. We thank the Fermilab staff and the technical staffs of the participating institutions for their vital contributions. This work was supported by the U.S. Department of Energy and National Science Foundation; the Italian Istituto Nazionale di Fisica Nucleare; the Ministry of Education, Science, Sports and Culture of Japan; the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada; the National Science Council of the Republic of China; the Swiss National Science Foundation; the A. P. Sloan Foundation; the Bundesministerium fuer Bildung und Forschung, Germany; the Korea Science and Engineering Foundation (KoSEF); the Korea Research Foundation; and the Comision Interministerial de Ciencia y Tecnologia, Spain.


text:
# The formation of black hole low-mass X-ray binaries: through case B or case C mass transfer?

## 1 Introduction

In low-mass X-ray binaries a neutron star or a black hole accretes from a low-mass ($`M1\mathrm{M}_{\mathrm{}}`$) companion. A scenario to form such stars begins with a relatively wide binary of a massive star and a low-mass companion. When the massive star becomes a giant, mass transfer is unstable and a common-envelope forms in which the companion spirals down towards the core of the giant, leaving a close binary consisting of the helium core of the giant and the low-mass companion (van den Heuvel 1983). The helium star explodes in a supernova and depending on the (core) mass of the helium star, a neutron star or black hole is formed. With the discovery of A0620-00 (Eyles et al. 1975; Elvis et al. 1975) and the determination of the mass function of 3.18 (McClintock & Remillard 1986), the existence of the class of black hole low-mass X-ray binaries was established. Currently we know 6 to 8 such systems depending on the membership criteria (Charles 1998; Bailyn et al. 1998). An evolutionary scenario for these objects is given in de Kool et al. (1987).

To make a black hole, the initial mass of the primary must exceed a critical value, which currently is believed to be around 20 $`\mathrm{M}_{\mathrm{}}`$(Fryer 1999). However, large mass-loss rates for massive stars and Wolf-Rayet stars have been inferred from observations (e.g. de Jager et al. 1988) and are found from the comparison of Wolf-Rayet models with these observations (Langer 1989a). Applying these rates to evolutionary calculations resulted in the conclusion that even massive single stars might end their evolution as relatively low-mass objects when they explode (Schaller et al. 1992; Meynet et al. 1994; Woosley et al. 1995) and are thus unable to produce the observed black holes (see also Kalogera 1999). For massive stars in close binaries, which lose their hydrogen envelopes due to mass transfer early in their evolution the situation is even worse; the most recent calculations predict masses of helium stars as they explode as low as 3 $`\mathrm{M}_{\mathrm{}}`$, almost independent of their initial mass (Wellstein & Langer 1999).

In this article we first discuss the formation of black hole low-mass X-ray binaries through case C evolution as suggested by Brown et al. (1999) and Wellstein & Langer (1999): mass transfer starting after core-helium burning has been completed (Kippenhahn & Weigert 1967). In this case a long-duration Wolf-Rayet phase in which the star loses a lot of mass is avoided (Sect. 2). Then we discuss the most recently observed mass-loss rates for Wolf-Rayet stars and the implication of lower mass-loss rates on the final helium-star masses of exploding stars in binaries (Sect. 3). At the end we discuss uncertainties and possible alternatives for the formation of black hole low-mass X-ray binaries (Sect. 4) and end with our conclusions (Sect. 5).

## 2 Case C mass transfer

It has been suggested that case C mass transfer could be invoked to avoid a long-duration Wolf-Rayet phase in the evolution of the massive star, in order that this star does not lose too much mass and still is able to form a massive black hole (Brown et al. 1999; Wellstein & Langer 1999).

The occurrence of case C mass transfer depends on the radius evolution of massive stars. For supergiants the radius of the star is not very well defined, since the outer layers of the giant envelope are extremely dilute. However, the best we can do is use the calculated values of the radii of giants. We also neglect the interaction between the wind of the massive star and the companion which may influence the separation of the two stars.

We calculate the initial separation with which a binary should start in order to undergo case C mass transfer as follows (see also Portegies Zwart et al. 1997). The separation at the moment the Roche-lobe overflow (RLOF) starts is given by

$$a_{\mathrm{RLOF}}=\frac{R}{r_\mathrm{L}}$$
(1)
where $`R`$ is the radius of the star and $`r_\mathrm{L}`$ is the dimensionless Roche-lobe radius (the ratio of the Roche-lobe radius and the binary separation). We use the Eggleton (1983) equation for $`r_\mathrm{L}`$. For mass ratios between 10 and 50, the value of $`r_\mathrm{L}`$ is between about 0.6 and 0.7. During the evolution the star loses mass and the separation increases according to

$$a^{}=a\frac{M}{M^{}},$$
(2)
where $`M`$ denotes the total mass of the binary. So to start Roche-lobe overflow at time $`t`$ when the star has a radius $`R(t)`$, the initial separation is given by

$`a_\mathrm{i}`$ $`=`$ $`a_{\mathrm{RLOF}}(t){\displaystyle \frac{M(t)}{M_\mathrm{i}}}`$ (3)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{R(t)}{r_\mathrm{L}}}{\displaystyle \frac{M(t)}{M_\mathrm{i}}}.`$
We now compute the separations at which massive stars fill their Roche lobes as function of initial mass and initial separation and determine whether the mass transfer is case B or case C. In Fig. 1 (top) we show this for the evolutionary calculations of Schaller et al. (1992, see also Fig. 4 of ). For a star of initially 15 $`\mathrm{M}_{\mathrm{}}`$case C mass transfer occurs for initial separation between 1000 and 1320 $`\mathrm{R}_{\mathrm{}}`$. For a 20 $`\mathrm{M}_{\mathrm{}}`$star, these limits are 1300 and 1550 $`\mathrm{R}_{\mathrm{}}`$. For a 25 $`\mathrm{M}_{\mathrm{}}`$star case C is not possible anymore. The two other panels in Fig. 1 show the same, but for the stellar evolution models of Hurley et al. (2000, middle) and Heger et al. (2000, bottom). For these models case C is not possible for stars more massive than around 19 $`\mathrm{M}_{\mathrm{}}`$. A recent estimate of the number of black hole low-mass X-ray binaries that can form through the narrow case C interval of the Schaller models shows that even such a narrow interval might be enough to explain the whole Galactic population (Brown et al. 2001).

We conclude that since case C evolution depends strongly on the radius evolution of massive stars which is very uncertain, it seems possible but is not certain whether black hole low-mass X-ray binaries can be formed in this way.

## 3 Case B mass transfer

A different way to avoid too much mass loss may be the fact that observed mass loss rates (which are the basis for the mass-loss rates used in the evolutionary calculations) are revised downward (Hamann & Koesterke 1998; Nugis & Lamers 2000), which may make it possible to prevent helium stars in binaries to lose so much mass they no longer can become black holes. In a recent paper with drastically lower mass-loss rates, derived from one particularly well-studied object and extrapolated, final masses over 20 $`\mathrm{M}_{\mathrm{}}`$for the most massive helium stars are found (Cherepashchuk 2001). As shown by Kalogera (1999) the helium stars that were the progenitors of the black holes in binaries cannot have lost more than half of their initial mass. This includes both mass loss in the stellar wind and in the supernova explosion.

A recent compilation of observed mass-loss rates for Wolf-Rayet stars is made by Nugis & Lamers (2000). In Fig. 2 we show these inferred mass-loss rates for WN and WC/WO stars (excluding the hydrogen rich Wolf-Rayet stars). We overplotted mass-loss rates for WN and WC stars as used by Woosley et al. (1995) as the solid lines. The mass-loss rates used recently by Wellstein & Langer (1999) are shown as the dashed lines, where we used the luminosity – mass relation as given by Langer (1989b) to convert the mass loss – luminosity relation used by these authors, to a mass loss – mass relation. The top dashed line is their standard case, the bottom a reduced mass-loss rate, which they used to account for the lower observed mass-loss rates.

The most recently determined mass-loss rates thus suggest that the rates used by Wellstein & Langer (1999) are still too high. We will investigate the effect of using a lower mass-loss rate law, which is shown in the figure as the dash-dotted line and is given by

$$\dot{M}=1.38\times \mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}10}^8M^{2.87}$$
(4)
and is obtained by a ‘rectangular least square fit’ (Langer 1989a) to the data (i.e. minimising the rectangular distances to the line, rather than the vertical distances). The fit is different from the one obtained by Nugis & Lamers (2000) because we excluded the hydrogen rich Wolf-Rayet stars.

For a mass-loss rate of the form

$$\dot{M}=kM^\alpha $$
(5)
the final helium stars mass $`M_\mathrm{f}`$ can be computed from the initial mass $`M_\mathrm{i}`$ and the helium star lifetime ($`\tau `$) from

$$M_\mathrm{f}=\left[M_\mathrm{i}^{1\alpha }+(\alpha 1)k\tau \right]^{1/(1\alpha )}.$$
(6)
As a check of our calculations we show in Fig. 3 the final masses that we obtain using the top two lines (dashed and solid) from Fig. 2 and the helium star lifetimes as given by Woosley et al. (1995) and compare these with the results obtained with the same mass-loss rates by Woosley et al. (1995) and Wellstein & Langer (1999). For the dashed line the final mass is obtained by numerical integration of the mass evolution. The final masses do not completely agree with the masses obtained by Wellstein & Langer (1999), probably because these high mass-loss rates lead to even longer lifetimes.

We now calculated the final masses for the revised mass-loss rate given by Eq. (4), which yields

$$M_\mathrm{f}=\left[M_\mathrm{i}^{1.87}+2.6\times 10^8\tau \right]^{1/1.87}.$$
(7)
In Fig. 4 we show these masses for the helium star lifetimes from Woosley et al. (1995, solid line). The lifetime of the helium star depends on the assumed mass-loss rate because mass-losing helium stars become less massive, thus less luminous and can live longer. For example the helium star lifetimes as given by Woosley et al. (1995) are substantially longer than the ones collected by Pols et al. (1991) for models without mass loss. We thus expect the lifetimes for the helium stars with reduced mass-loss rates to be shorter. In Fig. 4 we also plotted the final helium star masses assuming a lifetime which is halfway in-between the lifetimes given by Woosley et al. (1995) and Pols et al. (1991, dashed line) and the one given by Pols et al. (1991, dash-dotted line).

The horizontal line is at 7 $`\mathrm{M}_{\mathrm{}}`$, the typical observed mass of the black holes in the low-mass X-ray binaries. The limiting ZAMS mass for which the final helium star mass exceeds 7 $`\mathrm{M}_{\mathrm{}}`$with the masses loss rate used here is $`30`$$`37\mathrm{M}_{\mathrm{}}`$.

We thus conclude that with revised mass-loss rates helium stars end their lives with significantly higher masses than previously found and may be able to form black holes even after case B mass transfer.

## 4 Discussion

The analysis in Sect. 2 neglects the influence of the wind of the massive star on the companion star. The companion moves through the wind and already feels friction, which counteracts the widening of the orbit due to the stellar wind. However, even for a wind mass-loss rate of $`10^3\mathrm{M}_{\mathrm{}}`$ yr<sup>-1</sup>, the density in the wind at the companion is almost four orders of magnitude lower than the density at the edge of the giant for a giant with radius of 1000 $`\mathrm{R}_{\mathrm{}}`$and a binary separation of 1600 $`\mathrm{R}_{\mathrm{}}`$.

The whole argument presented in Sect. 3 is based on the observed mass-loss rates. However, it should be noted that *all* mass-loss rates proposed for Wolf-Rayet stars and used in evolutionary calculations are based on the observed rates. The valid question still remains what the uncertainty is in the observed mass-loss rates and in the inferred stellar masses and how this could influence our main conclusion.

The mass-loss rates as determined by Nugis & Lamers (2000) are the most accurate, but still suffer from the general problem that not all quantities (mass, mass-loss rate and luminosity) can be determined independently. They therefore use the mass – luminosity relation of Schaerer & Maeder (1992) to obtain the final mass estimates from the luminosity. Using a different mass – luminosity relation may change the resulting mass/mass-loss rate combinations.

Taking the masses and mass-loss rates as plotted in Fig. 2, one would not say that there is a unique mass-loss rate – mass relation, as is expected on theoretical grounds (Langer 1989b). The scatter is larger than the quoted uncertainty in the observations. This either points to underestimates of the errors in the observations, to variability or to additional physical processes, which were not taken into account in the calculations by Langer (1989b) and can change the mass-loss rate for a given Wolf-Rayet star mass. One could think of rotation, magnetic fields or maybe the evolutionary history.

In the last respect it might be that stars in binaries that lose their hydrogen envelopes by mass transfer evolve differently from stars that lose their envelopes due to their own stellar winds (which possibly is enhanced by a companion). The question which stars actually form black holes and which neutron stars is considerably more complex than the question of the final mass of helium stars (e.g. Fryer 1999). In particular the evolution of the core is important. As long as the collapse of the core are not understood this question will remain unanswered.

Finally, it should be noted that to form a black hole low-mass X-ray binary the companion must survive the common-envelope phase. The outcome of the common envelope depends on the binding energy and density structure of the giants envelope, which are quite different for giants that undergo case B and case C mass transfer. It could for instance be that that all binaries that undergo case B mass transfer to a low-mass companion will completely merge. That would mean that we *need* the small allowed initial separation range for case C.

## 5 Conclusion

We calculated the possible initial separations for which case C mass transfer is likely to occur for binaries containing a massive star and a low-mass star, using different stellar evolution models. We find that case C mass transfer becomes impossible for primaries more massive than around 19 $`\mathrm{M}_{\mathrm{}}`$for the models of Heger et al. (2000) and Hurley et al. (2000) and more massive than around 25 $`\mathrm{M}_{\mathrm{}}`$for the models by Schaller et al. (1992). For such binaries either case B mass transfer occurs, or no mass transfer at all. Unless the current models for massive stars underestimate the radius expansion after the end of core helium burning the chances for forming black holes in binaries through case C mass transfer are therefore limited.

We also investigated the influence of the assumed mass-loss rate on the final mass of helium stars in binaries and conclude that with a downward revised mass-loss rate as suggested by the observations (e.g. Nugis & Lamers 2000) helium stars end their lives with significantly higher masses than previously found and may be able to form black holes even after case B mass transfer for primaries more massive than $`30`$$`40\mathrm{M}_{\mathrm{}}`$.

###### Acknowledgements.

We thank Jasinta Dewi and Norbert Langer for helpful discussion and trial calculations of helium star evolution and Alexander Heger for providing details of his evolutionary calculations. This work was supported by NWO Spinoza grant 08-0 to E. P. J. van den Heuvel.