text:
# Production of the MSSM Higgs Bosons at Next Generation Linear 𝑒⁺𝑒⁻ Colliders

## I Introduction

Higgs bosons  play an important role in the Standard Model (SM) ; they are responsible for generating the masses of all the elementary particles (leptons, quarks, and gauge bosons). However, the Higgs-boson sector is the least tested one in the SM. If Higgs bosons are responsible for breaking the symmetry from $`SU(2)_L\times U(1)_Y`$ to $`U(1)_{EM}`$, it is natural to expect that other Higgs bosons are also involved in breaking other symmetries. One of the more attractive extensions of the SM is Supersymmetry (SUSY) , mainly because of its capacity to solve the naturalness and hierarchy problems while maintaining the Higgs bosons elementary.

The theoretical frame work of this paper is the Minimal Supersymmetric extension of the Standard Model (MSSM), which doubles the spectrum of particles of the SM and the new free parameters obey simple relations. The scalar sector of the MSSM  requires two Higgs doublets, thus the remaining scalar spectrum contains the following physical states: two CP-even Higgs scalar ($`h^0`$ and $`H^0`$) with $`m_{h^0}m_{H^0}`$, one CP-odd Higgs scalar ($`A^0`$) and a charged Higgs pair ($`H^\pm `$), whose detection would be a clear signal of new physics. The Higgs sector is specified at tree-level by fixing two parameters, which can be chosen as the mass of the pseudoscalar $`m_{A^0}`$ and the ratio of vacuum expectation values of the two doublets $`\mathrm{tan}\beta =v_2/v_1`$, then the mass $`m_{h^0}`$, $`m_{H^0}`$ and $`m_{H^\pm }`$ and the mixing angle of the neutral Higgs sector $`\alpha `$ can be fixed. However, since radiative corrections produce substantial effects on the predictions of the model , it is necessary to specify also the squark masses, which are assumed to be degenerated. In this paper, we focus on the phenomenology of the neutral CP-even and CP-odd scalar ($`h^0,H^0,A^0`$) and charged $`(H^\pm )`$.

The search for these scalars has begun at LEP, and current low energy bound on their masses gives $`m_{h^0}`$, $`m_{A^0}`$ $`>`$ 90 $`GeV`$ and $`m_{H^\pm }`$ $`>`$ 120 $`GeV`$ for $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$ $`>`$ 1 . At $`e^+e^{}`$ colliders the signals for Higgs bosons are relatively clean and the opportunities for discovery and detailed study will be excellent. The most important processes for the production and detection of the neutral and charged Higgs bosons $`h^0`$, $`H^0`$, $`A^0`$ and $`H^\pm `$, are: $`e^+e^{}Z^{}h^0,H^0+Z^0`$, $`e^+e^{}Z^{}h^0,H^0+A^0`$, $`e^+e^{}\nu \overline{\nu }+W^+W^{}\nu \overline{\nu }+h^0,H^0`$ (the later is conventionally referred to as $`WW`$ fusions), and $`e^+e^{}H^+H^{}`$ ; precise cross-section formulas appear in Ref. . The main decay modes of the neutral Higgs particles are in general $`b\overline{b}`$ decays $`(90\%)`$ and $`\tau ^+\tau ^{}`$ decays $`(10\%)`$ which are easy to detect experimentally at $`e^+e^{}`$ colliders . Charged Higgs particles decay predominantly into $`\tau \nu _\tau `$ and $`t\overline{b}`$ pairs.

In previous studies, the two-body processes of the neutral and charged Higgs bosons $`e^+e^{}h^0(H^0)+Z^0`$, $`e^+e^{}h^0(H^0)+A^0`$ and $`e^+e^{}H^+H^{}`$ have been evaluated  extensively. However, the inclusion of three-body process with heavy fermions $`f`$, $`e^+e^{}(f\overline{f}h^0,f\overline{f}H^0,f\overline{f}A^0)`$,  and $`e^+e^{}\tau ^{}\overline{\nu }_\tau H^+,\tau ^+\nu _\tau H^{}`$  at future $`e^+e^{}`$ colliders energies  is necessary in order to know its impact on the two-body mode processes and also to search for new relations that could have a cleaner signature of the Higgs bosons production.

In the present paper we study the production of SUSY Higgs bosons at $`e^+e^{}`$ colliders. We are interested in finding regions that could allow the detection of the SUSY Higgs bosons for the set parameter space $`(m_{A^0}\mathrm{tan}\beta )`$. We shall discuss the neutral and charged Higgs bosons production $`b\overline{b}h^0(H^0,A^0)`$, and $`\tau ^{}\overline{\nu }_\tau H^+`$, $`\tau ^+\nu _\tau H^{}`$ in the energy range of a future $`e^+e^{}`$ collider  for large values of the parameter $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$, where one expects to have a high production. Since the coupling $`h^0b\overline{b}`$ is proportional to $`\mathrm{sin}\alpha /\mathrm{cos}\beta `$, the cross-section will receive a large enhancement factor when $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$ is large. Similar situation occurs for $`H^0`$, whose coupling with $`b\overline{b}`$ is proportional to $`\mathrm{cos}\alpha /\mathrm{cos}\beta `$. The couplings of $`A^0`$ with $`b\overline{b}`$ and of $`H^\pm `$ with $`\tau ^{}\overline{\nu }_\tau ,\tau ^+\nu _\tau `$ are directly proportional to $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$, thus the amplitudes will always grow with $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$. We consider the complete set of Feynman diagrams at tree-level and use the helicity formalism  for the evaluation of the amplitudes. Succinctly, our aim in this work is to analyze how much the results of the Bjorken Mechanism \[Fig. 1, (1.4)\] would be enhanced by the contribution from the diagrams depicted in Figs. 1.1-1.3, 1.5 and 1.6 in which the SUSY Higgs bosons are radiated by a $`b(\overline{b})`$ quark. For the case of the charged Higgs bosons the two-body mode \[Figs. 3.1 and 3.4\] would be enhanced by the contribution from the diagrams depicted in Figs. 3.2, 3.3, and 3.5, in which the charged Higgs boson is radiated by a $`\tau ^{}\overline{\nu }_\tau `$ $`(\tau ^+\nu _\tau )`$ lepton.

Recently, it has been shown that for large values of $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$ the detection of SUSY Higgs bosons is possible at FNAL and LHC . In the papers cited in Ref.  the authors calculated the corresponding three-body diagrams for hadron collisions. They pointed out the importance of a large bottom Yukawa coupling at hadron colliders and showed that the Tevatron collider may be a good place for detecting SUSY Higgs bosons. In the case of the hadron colliders the three-body diagrams come from gluon fusion and this fact makes the contribution from these diagrams more important, due to the gluon abundance inside the hadrons. The advantage for the case of $`e^+e^{}`$ colliders is that the signals of the processes are cleaner.

This paper is organized as follows. We present in Sec. II the relevant details of the calculations. In Sec. III we evaluate cross section for the processes $`e^+e^{}b\overline{b}h^0(H^0,A^0)`$ and $`e^+e^{}\tau ^{}\overline{\nu }_\tau H^+,\tau ^+\nu _\tau H^{}`$ at future $`e^+e^{}`$ colliders. Finally, Sec. IV contains our conclusions.

## II Helicity Amplitude for Higgs Bosons Production

When the number of Feynman diagrams is increased, the calculation of the amplitude is a rather unpleasant task. Some algebraic forms  can be used in it to avoid manual calculation, but sometimes the lengthy printed output from the computer is overwhelming, and one can hardly find the required results from it. The CALKUL collaboration  suggested the Helicity Amplitude Method (HAM) which can simplify the calculation remarkably and hence make the manual calculation realistic.

In this section we describe in brief the evaluation of the amplitudes at tree-level, for $`e^+e^{}b\overline{b}h^0(H^0,A^0)`$ and $`e^+e^{}\tau ^{}\overline{\nu }_\tau H^+,\tau ^+\nu _\tau H^{}`$ using the HAM . This method is a powerful technique for computing helicity amplitudes for multiparticle processes involving massless spin-1/2 and spin-1 particles. Generalization of this method that incorporates massive spin-1/2 and spin-1 particles, is given in Ref. . This algebra is easy to program and more efficient than computing the Dirac algebra.

A Higgs boson $`h^0,H^0`$, $`A^0`$, and $`H^\pm `$ can be produced in scattering $`e^+e^{}`$ via the following processes:

$`e^+e^{}`$ $``$ $`b\overline{b}h^0,`$ (1)
$`e^+e^{}`$ $``$ $`b\overline{b}H^0,`$ (2)
$`e^+e^{}`$ $``$ $`b\overline{b}A^0,`$ (3)
$`e^+e^{}`$ $``$ $`\tau ^{}\overline{\nu }_\tau H^+,\tau ^+\nu _\tau H^{}.`$ (4)
The diagrams of Feynman, which contribute at tree-level to the different reaction mechanisms, are depicted in Figs. 1-3.

However those diagrams with exchange of Higgs bosons instead of gauge bosons (photon or $`Z^0`$) have been neglected because of the smallness of the Higgs fermion coupling. Using the Feynman rules given by the Minimal Supersymmetric Standard Model (MSSM), as summarized in Ref. , we can write the amplitudes for these reactions. For the evaluation of the amplitudes we have used the spinor-helicity technique of Xu, Zhang and Chang  (denoted henceforth by XZC), which is a modification of the technique developed by the CALKUL collaboration . Following XZC, we introduce a very useful notation for the calculation of the processes (1)-(4). The complete formulas of the processes (1)-(3) are given in Ref. , while for the case of process (4), are given in Ref. . We are going to use the same notation and the formulas given in  and do not reproduce them here.

After writing down the Feynman diagrams corresponding to a given amplitude $``$ an usually proceeds to derive an analytic expression for the cross section $`||^2`$, with an appropriate spin and/or color sum or average. The result, which is usually a function of Minkowsky products of the particle four-momenta, is then evaluated numerically at phase-space points in the region of interest.

It is clear that any method which evaluates $``$ instead of $`||^2`$ will eventually become superior to the standard approach. Indeed, several authors have stressed this point and proposed alternatives.

We want to argue that it is useful to employ in the evaluation of the amplitude not vector products like $`p_1p_2`$ but rather spinor products like $`\overline{u}(p_1)u(p_2)`$.

After the evaluation of the amplitudes of the corresponding diagrams, we obtain the cross-sections of the analyzed processes for each point of the phase space using Eqs. (12)-(17), (23)-(28) and (11)-(15)  by a computer program, which makes use of the subroutine RAMBO (Random Momenta Beautifully Organized) . The advantages of this procedure in comparison to the traditional “trace technique” are discussed in Refs. .

We use the Breit-Wigner propagators for the $`Z^0`$, $`h^0`$, $`H^0`$, $`A^0`$ and $`H^\pm `$ bosons. For the SM parameters we adopted the following: $`m_b=4.25`$ $`GeV`$, $`m_t=175`$ $`GeV`$, $`m_\tau =1.78`$ $`GeV`$, $`m_\nu =0`$, $`m_{Z^0}=91.2`$ $`GeV`$, $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{Z^0}=2.4974`$ $`GeV`$, $`\mathrm{sin}^2\theta _W=0.232`$, which are taken as inputs. The widths of $`h^0`$, $`H^0`$, $`A^0`$ and $`H^\pm `$ are calculated from the formulas given in Ref. . In the next sections we present the numerical computation of the processes $`e^+e^{}b\overline{b}h`$, $`h=h^0,H^0,A^0`$ and $`e^+e^{}\tau ^{}\overline{\nu }_\tau H^+,\tau ^+\nu _\tau H^{}`$.

## III Production of the MSSM Higgs Bosons at Next Generation Positron-Electron Colliders

In this paper, we evaluate total cross section of neutral and charged MSSM Higgs bosons at next generation $`e^+e^{}`$ colliders, including three-body mode diagrams \[Figs. 1.1-1.3, 1.5, and 1.6; Figs. 2.1-2.3, 2.5 and 2.6; Figs. 3.2, 3.3, and 3.5\] besides the dominant mode diagram \[Fig. 1.4; Fig. 2.4; Figs. 3.1, and 3.4\] consider two stages of a possible Next Linear $`e^+e^{}`$ Collider: the first with $`\sqrt{s}=500`$ $`GeV`$ and design luminosity 50 $`fb^1`$, and the second with $`\sqrt{s}=1`$ $`TeV`$ and luminosity 100-200 $`fb^1`$. We consider the complete set of Feynman diagrams (Figs. 1-3) at tree-level and utilize the helicity formalism for the evaluation of their amplitudes. In the next subsections, we present our results for the case of the different Higgs bosons.

### A Cross section of $`h^0`$

In order to illustrate our results on the production of the $`h^0`$ Higgs boson, we present graphs of the cross section as functions of $`A^0`$ Higgs boson mass $`m_{A^0}`$, assuming $`m_t=175`$ $`GeV`$, $`M_\stackrel{}{t}=500`$ $`GeV`$ and $`\mathrm{tan}\beta >1`$ for NLC. Our results are displayed in Fig. 4, for the process at three-body $`e^+e^{}b\overline{b}h^0`$ and for the $`e^+e^{}(A^0,Z^0)+h^0`$ dominant mode.

The total cross section at colliders energies of 500 $`GeV`$ and 4 different values of the fundamental supersymmetry parameter $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$, 6, 10, 30, 50 is of the order of 0.1 $`pb`$. We note from this figure, that the effect of the reaction $`b\overline{b}h^0`$ is light more important that $`(A^0,Z^0)+h^0`$, for the interval 80 $`GeV`$$`m_{A^0}110`$ $`GeV`$ and $`\mathrm{tan}\beta =30,50`$. Nevertheless, there are substantial portions in which the discovery of the $`h^0`$ is not possible using either $`b\overline{b}h^0`$ or $`(A^0,Z^0)+h^0`$.

For the case of $`\sqrt{s}=1`$ $`TeV`$, the results of the total cross section of the $`h^0`$ are shown in Fig. 8. It is clear from this figure that the contribution of the process $`e^+e^{}b\overline{b}h^0`$ becomes dominant in the interval 80 $`GeV`$$`m_{A^0}120`$ $`GeV`$. However, they could provide important information on the Higgs bosons detection. For instance, we present in the next section tables that illustrate the events number for the process $`e^+e^{}b\overline{b}h^0`$, with $`m_{A^0}=100`$ $`GeV`$, $`\sqrt{s}=(500,1000)`$ $`GeV`$ and $`\mathrm{tan}\beta =10,30`$.

### B Cross section of $`H^0`$

To illustrate our results regarding the detection of the heavy Higgs bosons $`H^0`$, we give the total cross section for both processes $`e^+e^{}b\overline{b}H^0`$ and $`e^+e^{}(A^0,Z^0)+H^0`$ in Fig. 5 for $`\sqrt{s}=500`$ $`GeV`$.

The total cross section for this case is of the order of 0.01 $`pb`$. In this figure, we observed that the effect of incorporate $`b\overline{b}H^0`$ in the detection of the Higgs boson $`H^0`$ is more important than the case of two-body mode $`(A^0,Z^0)+H^0`$, because $`b\overline{b}H^0`$ is dominant in all the interval of 100 $`GeV`$$`m_{A^0}400`$ $`GeV`$.

For the case of $`\sqrt{s}=1`$ $`TeV`$, the results are show in Fig. 9. In this case the three-body mode $`b\overline{b}H^0`$ is light more important that $`(A^0,Z^0)+H^0`$ for 100 $`GeV`$$`m_{A^0}450`$ $`GeV`$. In the next section are present tables with the events number for $`e^+e^{}b\overline{b}H^0`$.

### C Cross section of $`A^0`$

For the pseudoscalar $`A^0`$, it is interesting to consider the production mode in $`b\overline{b}A^0`$, since it can have large a cross-section due to the fact that the coupling of $`A^0`$ with $`b\overline{b}`$ is directly proportional to $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$, thus will always grow with it. In Fig. 6, we present the total cross section for the process of our interest $`b\overline{b}A^0`$, at $`\sqrt{s}=500`$ $`GeV`$ and $`\mathrm{tan}\beta =6,10,30,50`$.

We note that for $`\mathrm{tan}\beta =6,10,30,50`$, both the $`b\overline{b}A^0`$ mode and the $`(h^0,H^0)+A^0`$ mode have cross sections of the order of 0.1 $`pb`$, and for $`m_{A^0}>175`$ $`GeV`$ the process $`b\overline{b}A^0`$ cover a major region in the parameters space $`(m_{A^0},\mathrm{tan}\beta )`$.

On the other hand, if we focus the detection of the $`A^0`$ at $`\sqrt{s}=1`$ $`TeV`$, the panorama for its detection is more extensive. The Fig. 10 shows the contours lines in the plane $`(\sigma _Tm_{A^0})`$, to the production cross section of $`b\overline{b}A^0`$. The contours for this cross section correspond to $`\mathrm{tan}\beta =6,10,30,50`$. The total cross section is of the order of 0.01 $`pb`$ and the three-body mode $`e^+e^{}b\overline{b}A^0`$ is more important that two-body mode $`e^+e^{}(h^0,H^0)+A^0`$ in all the parameters space.

### D Cross section of $`H^\pm `$

Our results for the $`H^+H^{}`$ scalars are displayed in Fig. 7, 11 for the processes at three-body $`e^+e^{}\tau ^{}\overline{\nu }_\tau H^+,\tau ^+\nu _\tau H^{}`$ and for the $`e^+e^{}H^+H^{}`$ dominant mode.

The total cross section for this reaction with $`\sqrt{s}=500`$ $`GeV`$ and 4 different values of $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$, 6, 10, 30, 50 are show in Fig. 7. The cross section is of the order of $`\sigma _T0.1`$ $`pb`$ for $`m_{H^\pm }100`$ $`GeV`$ and $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$ large, while for $`m_{H^\pm }200`$ $`GeV`$ is of $`\sigma _T0.01`$ $`pb`$. We can see from this figure that the effect of the reactions $`\tau ^{}\overline{\nu }_\tau H^+`$ and $`\tau ^+\nu _\tau H^{}`$ is slightly more important than $`H^+H^{}`$ for most of the $`(m_{A^0}\mathrm{tan}\beta )`$ parameters space regions. It is precisely in this curve where the contribution of the processes at three-body is notable. Nevertheless, there are substantial portions of parameters space in which the discovery of the $`H^\pm `$ is not possible using either $`H^+H^{}`$ or $`\tau ^{}\overline{\nu }_\tau H^+`$ and $`\tau ^+\nu _\tau H^{}`$.

For the case of $`\sqrt{s}=1`$ $`TeV`$, the results are show in Fig. 11. In both cases ($`\tau ^{}\overline{\nu }_\tau H^+`$, $`\tau ^+\nu _\tau H^{}`$ and $`H^+H^{}`$) the curves with $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$, 6, 10, 30, 50 given $`\sigma _T0.1`$ $`pb`$ for $`m_{H^\pm }175`$ $`GeV`$. While for $`m_{H^\pm }350`$ $`GeV`$ the cross section drop until 0.001 $`pb^1`$ for $`\mathrm{tan}\beta =6`$. These cross sections are small, however, the contribution of the processes at three-body is slightly more important than the process at two-body. The most important conclusion from this figure is that detection of the charged Higgs bosons will be possible at future $`e^+e^{}`$ colliders.

### E Total Production of the Higgs Bosons

We present in Tables I, II our results for the total production of $`h^0`$, $`H^0`$, $`A^0`$, $`H^\pm `$ Higgs bosons, taking different values of the center-of-mass energy $`\sqrt{s}`$, fundamental supersymmetry parameter $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$, luminosity $``$, and the mass of the pseudoscalar $`m_{A^0}`$. We take the following values representative of the supersymmetric parameters $`m_{A^0}=100`$ $`GeV`$ and $`\mathrm{tan}\beta =10,30`$. From these results we observed a strong dependence of the supersymmetric parameter $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$, in particularly for $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$ large, as well as, of the center-of-mass energy $`\sqrt{s}`$, in the production of the different Higgs bosons $`(h^0,H^0,A^0,H^\pm )`$. These results make apparent the big importance of investigate the possibility of detecting the Higgs bosons with the reactions at three-body $`e^+e^{}b\overline{b}h^0(H^0,A^0)`$ and $`e^+e^{}\tau ^{}\overline{\nu }_\tau H^+,\tau ^+\nu _\tau H^{}`$, at next generation linear $`e^+e^{}`$ colliders.

| Total Production of Higgs Bosons | $``$=50 $`fb^1`$ | |
| --- | --- | --- |
|  | $`\mathrm{tan}\beta =10`$ | $`\mathrm{tan}\beta =30`$ |
| $`h^0`$ | 1600 | 1800 |
| $`H^0`$ | 700 | 470 |
| $`A^0`$ | 900 | 935 |
| $`H^+H^{}`$ | 7000 | 6500 |

Table I. Total production of Higgs bosons $`h^0,H^0,A^0,H^\pm `$ of the MSSM for $`\sqrt{s}=500`$ $`GeV`$ and $`m_{A^0}=100`$ $`GeV`$.

| Total Production of Higgs Bosons | $``$=100 $`fb^1`$ | | $``$=200 $`fb^1`$ | |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
|  | $`\mathrm{tan}\beta =10`$ | $`\mathrm{tan}\beta =30`$ | $`\mathrm{tan}\beta =10`$ | $`\mathrm{tan}\beta =30`$ |
| $`h^0`$ | 960 | 1150 | 1920 | 2300 |
| $`H^0`$ | 370 | 220 | 740 | 440 |
| $`A^0`$ | 560 | 615 | 1120 | 1230 |
| $`H^+H^{}`$ | 4700 | 4900 | 9400 | 9800 |

Table II. Total production of Higgs bosons $`h^0,H^0,A^0,H^\pm `$ of the MSSM for $`\sqrt{s}=1`$ $`TeV`$ and $`m_{A^0}=100`$ $`GeV`$.

## IV Conclusions

In this paper, we have calculated the production of the neutral and charged Higgs bosons in association with $`b`$-quarks and with $`\tau \nu _\tau `$ leptons via the processes $`e^+e^{}b\overline{b}h`$, $`h=h^0,H^0,A^0`$ and $`e^+e^{}\tau ^{}\overline{\nu }_\tau H^+,\tau ^+\nu _\tau H^{}`$ using the helicity formalism. We find that these processes could help to detect the possible neutral and charged Higgs bosons at energies of a possible Next Linear $`e^+e^{}`$ Collider when $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$ is large.

In summary, we conclude that the possibilities of detecting or excluding the neutral and charged Higgs bosons $`(h^0,H^0,A^0,H^\pm )`$ of the Minimal Supersymmetric Standard Model in the processes $`e^+e^{}b\overline{b}h`$, $`h=h^0,H^0,A^0`$ and $`e^+e^{}\tau ^{}\overline{\nu }_\tau H^+,\tau ^+\overline{\nu }_\tau H^{}`$ are important and in some cases are compared favorably with the dominant mode $`e^+e^{}(A^0,Z^0)+h`$, $`h=h^0,H^0,A^0`$ and $`e^+e^{}H^+H^{}`$ with $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$ large. The detection of the Higgs boson will require the use of a future high energy machine like the Next Linear $`e^+e^{}`$ Collider.

Acknowledgments

This work was supported in part by Consejo Nacional de Ciencia y Tecnología (CONACyT), Sistema Nacional de Investigadores (SNI) (México) and Programa de Mejoramiento al Profesorado (PROMEP). A.G.R. would like to thank the organizers of the Summer School in Particle Physics and Sixth School on non-Accelerator Astroparticle Physics 2001, Trieste Italy for their hospitality. O. A. S. would like to thank CONICET (Argentina).

FIGURE CAPTIONS

Fig. 1 Feynman Diagrams at tree-level for $`e^+e^{}b\overline{b}h^0`$. For $`e^+e^{}b\overline{b}H^0`$ one has to make only the change $`\mathrm{sin}\alpha /\mathrm{cos}\beta \mathrm{cos}\alpha /\mathrm{cos}\beta `$.

Fig. 2 Feynman Diagrams at tree-level for $`e^+e^{}b\overline{b}A^0`$.

Fig. 3 Feynman Diagrams at tree-level for $`e^+e^{}\tau ^{}\overline{\nu }_\tau H^+,\tau ^+\nu _\tau H^{}`$.

Fig. 4 Total Higgs production cross sections $`e^+e^{}b\overline{b}h^0`$ and $`e^+e^{}(A^0,Z^0)+h^0`$ with $`\sqrt{s}=500`$ and 4 different values of $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$, 6, 10, 30, 50. We have taken $`m_t=175`$ $`GeV`$ and $`M_\stackrel{}{t}=500`$ $`GeV`$ and neglected squark mixing.

Fig. 5 Same as in Fig. 4, but for $`e^+e^{}b\overline{b}H^0`$ and $`e^+e^{}(A^0,Z^0)+H^0`$.

Fig. 6 Same as in Fig. 4, but for $`e^+e^{}b\overline{b}A^0`$ and $`e^+e^{}(h^0,H^0)+A^0`$.

Fig. 7 Same as in Fig. 4, but for $`e^+e^{}\tau ^{}\overline{\nu }_\tau H^+,\tau ^+\nu _\tau H^{}`$ and $`e^+e^{}H^+H^{}`$.

Fig. 8 Total Higgs production cross sections for $`\sqrt{s}=1`$ $`TeV`$ and 4 different values of $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$, 6, 10, 30, 50. We have taken $`m_t=175`$ $`GeV`$, $`M_\stackrel{}{t}=500`$ $`GeV`$ and neglected squark mixing. We display contours for $`e^+e^{}b\overline{b}h^0`$ and $`e^+e^{}(A^0,Z^0)+h^0`$, in the parameters space $`(\sigma _Tm_{A^0})`$.

Fig. 9 Same as in Fig. 8, but for $`e^+e^{}b\overline{b}H^0`$ and $`e^+e^{}(A^0,Z^0)+H^0`$.

Fig. 10 Same as in Fig. 8, but for $`e^+e^{}b\overline{b}A^0`$ and $`e^+e^{}(h^0,H^0)+A^0`$.

Fig. 11 Same as in Fig. 8, but for $`e^+e^{}\tau ^{}\overline{\nu }_\tau H^+,\tau ^+\nu _\tau H^{}`$ and $`e^+e^{}H^+H^{}`$.


format: text

text:
# Large–Scale Structure Studies with Clusters of Galaxies

## 1. Introduction

I present here an incomplete and personal review of Large-Scale Structure (LSS) studies using clusters of galaxies. For a more complete overview of clusters as cosmological probes, the reader is referred to several excellent recent reviews by Biviano (2000), Schindler (2001a), Borgani & Guzzo (2001), Guzzo (2001) and Haiman, Mohr & Holder (2001).

### 1.1. Pros and Cons of Using Clusters for LSS Studies

As cosmologists, we want to study and understand the distribution of matter in the Universe as a function of space and time i.e. mass(x,y,z,t). This will allow us to constrain cosmological parameters, models of structure formation as well as understanding the physical processes that control the distribution of baryons. Ultimately, we want to directly compare our observations of the Universe to cosmological simulations e.g. the VIRGO-GIF project (Kauffmann et al. 1999). This is hard to do since we need to know how the light we observe, traces the underlying matter we simulate.

Historically, clusters of galaxies have been used for this task because: a) They survey large volumes of space thus producing a fair sample of the Universe; b) Clusters can be seen over a large range in redshift, thus probing cosmological evolution; c) They maintain the imprint of the initial conditions so simple analytical relationships can be used to explain their properties (e.g. Jenkins et al. 2001); d) Clusters are the largest gravitationally bound objects in the Universe, so we can weigh the Cosmos using them; e) Clusters are full of hot baryons, so we can study how mass follows light on cluster scales.

However, clusters do have their problems. First, they live in the tail of the underlying mass distribution and thus may be highly biased tracers of this distribution. This has been a major concern for a long time (Kaiser 1986), but recent observational and theoretical work (see Miller et al. 2001a, Narayanan et al. 2000) shows that a simple linear biasing model ($`b=1.5`$), between normal galaxies and clusters, does work well over an important range of scales ($`0.03k0.15h^1\mathrm{Mpc}^1`$. As an aside, I note that because of this fact, clusters may be an excellent probe of the gaussianity of the Universe since our models and simulations of the Universe assume gaussianity at the beginning (e.g. Chiu, Ostriker, & Strauss 1998; Robinson, Gawiser & Silk 1999; Matarrese, Verde & Jimenez 2000; Kerscher et al. 2001). Kerscher et al. (2001) has already found statistical evidence for non-gaussianity based on the REFLEX sample of X–ray clusters, although Verde et al. (2001) highlight that the CMB and high redshift galaxies maybe a better way to studying this issue.

Another concern with clusters is the assumption of hydrostatic equilbrium (for the gas) and the virial theorem (for the galaxies). For example, in the recent hydrodynamical/N-body simulations of Ricker & Sarazin (2001), an off-axis merger of two systems (mass ratio of 3:1) can produce large-scale turbulent motions with eddys up to several 100 kpcs. Even after nearly a Hubble time, these motions persist as subsonic turbulence in the cluster cores, providing 5-10% of the support against gravity. Roettiger, Burns & Loken (1996) and Ritchie & Thomas (2001) also found that major merger events can knock the cluster out of hydrostatic equilibrium for several Gyrs (see Schindler et al. 2001b for a recent review of cluster simulations).

To assess the importance of such mergers on the whole cluster population, I show in Fig. 1 the expected fraction of clusters ($`M10^{14}M_{}`$ or $`L_\mathrm{x}(0.52.0)>10^{43}\mathrm{erg}/\mathrm{s}`$) that have experienced a merger in the last 2.5Gyrs. This figure shows that as we push to higher redshifts the vast majority of clusters should show significant evidence for a recent merger that may severely effect their physical state (see Mathiesen & Evrard 2001). Fig. 1 is in agreement with the recent Chandra observations reported in Henry (2001) where 75% of $`z>0.75`$ clusters showed significant substructure. Therefore, if we wish to continue to use clusters as cosmological tracers, we must understand such effects in greater detail.

In light of these concerns, I challenged the audience at the conference to discuss the following question over the coffee break: “In this era of galaxy redshift, lensing and photometric surveys111Surveys like the SDSS, 2dF, LSST, SNAP, POI, DEEP & VIRMOS, is there still a need for cluster surveys of the Universe?”. For example, in Fig. 2, I show initial results from the Sloan Digital Sky Survey (SDSS) Luminous Red Galaxy (LRG) survey which is designed to create a pseudo–volume limited sample of 100,000 giant ellipticals out to $`z0.4`$ (although the sample does reach out to $`z0.6`$). This survey will sample the LSS on Gigaparsec scales – comparable with the largest cluster surveys – well beyond the turn–over in the matter power spectrum (see Section 3). The LRGs are still biased tracers but there is compelling evidence that we can fully understand their selection function (see Eisenstein et al. 2001 for details).

Returning to my question, I will emphasize that clusters are still the best way to: a) Constrain $`\sigma _8`$ (see Viana & Liddle 1999); b) Determine $`\mathrm{\Omega }_m`$ (see Sections 3 & 4), and; c) Study galaxy evolution in dense regions.

## 2. Cluster Correlation Function

The Cluster Correlation Function ($`\xi _{cc}=(\frac{r}{r_o})^\gamma `$ where $`r_o`$ is the correlation length defined as $`\xi _{cc}(r_o)=1`$) has had a long and controversial history. In the 1980’s, it was one of the main constraints on CDM models of structure formation (see White et al. 1987). The main controversy surrounding measurements of $`\xi _{cc}`$ has been the effects of optical projection effects on the Abell catalog i.e. the contamination of the 2D richness of clusters because of the field or a nearby clusters (Sutherland et al. 1988) and/or the super-position of two groups along the line–of–sight to create a “Phantom Cluster”. The hypothesis has been that these projection effects have artificially boosted the amplitude of Abell measurements of $`\xi _{cc}`$ thus making it inconsistent with CDM models (Sutherland et al. 1988; Dekel et al. 1989; Efstathiou et al. 1992). There are many advocates of this hypothesis (e.g. Dalton et al. 1992; Nichol et al. 1992 & 1994; Romer et al. 1994), but there are also many defenders of the Abell catalog (Postman et al. 1992; Miller et al. 1999). Over the last decade, such concerns have driven the creation of new optical and X–ray cluster surveys e.g. the EDCC (Lumdsen et al. 1992), APM (Dalton et al. 1992), DPOSS (Gal et al. 2000) and REFLEX surveys (Collins et al. 2000).

In Fig. 3, I show an historical overview of $`\xi _{cc}`$ measurements over the last 20 years. There are two interesting points to make about this figure: First, the correlation length of Abell $`\xi _{cc}`$’s have decreased with time. Secondly, X–ray measurements of $`r_o`$ have increased with time. These two trends can be understood via the relative space density of clusters in these different surveys. In the case of the Abell survey, the volume surveyed by the different samples of Abell clusters has not increased much since the first measurements, but the number of systems used in the measurement of $`\xi _{cc}`$ has steadily increased from $`100`$ to over $`600`$. Thus the space density of Abell clusters used in determining $`\xi _{cc}`$ has decreased over time. The opposite is true for the X–ray samples; the number of clusters used has increased, but so has the volume sampled, thus the space density has slightly decreased over time (see Croft et al 1997).

If we focus on recent measurements with similar slopes ($`1.7\gamma 2.0`$), then the agreement between present measurements of $`\xi _{cc}`$ is very good. This is illustrated in Fig. 4 where I show the $`\xi _{cc}`$ from nearly 1000 clusters (both Abell and X–ray). The great debate over the value of the correlation length of $`\xi _{cc}`$ is probably over especially given that the pi-sigma diagrams shown in Fig. 5 highlights that the clustering in both the Abell and X–ray surveys is now nearly isotropic. This removes one of the main arguments for projection effects in the Abell catalog and is probably due to the larger samples now available averaging over the effect of LSS and/or the effect of a single supercluster. We look forward to new $`\xi _{cc}`$ measurements from large, homogeneous samples of clusters taken from the SDSS, REFLEX and 2dF surveys.

## 3. Cluster Power Spectrum

In the last ten years, many authors have switched from measuring correlation functions to measurements of the cluster power spectrum since it allows for a more direct comparison with the theoretical models. For example, increasing $`\mathrm{\Omega }_mh^2`$ pushes the epoch of matter-radiation equality back in time and moves the peak in the p(k) to low k values (Tegmark 1999 222See the CMB movies on Max Tegmark’s homepage which illustrate this effect i.e. http://www.hep.upenn.edu/~max/). Therefore, the detection of the turn–over in the local power spectrum (p(k)) of matter provides a powerful constrain on both the matter density of the Universe and models of structure formation (e.g. CDM).

As yet, there has been no definitive detection of a turn–over (or peak) in the local matter p(k), but we are getting close (Szalay et al. 2001; Miller et al. 2001a; Percival et al. 2001; Huterer et al. 2001) as new surveys of the local Universe are approaching volumes than demand a turn–over to satisfy the COBE measurements at very low k. This lack of a detection naturally drives estimates of $`\mathrm{\Omega }_m`$ from these p(k)’s towards low values e.g. Miller et al. (2001a) recently estimated $`\mathrm{\Omega }_mh^2=0.12_{0.02}^{+0.03}`$ using a large sample of clusters to probe Gigaparsec scales. Similarly, Schuecker et al. (2001) presented the p(k) from the REFLEX sample and finds it favors low–density CDM models as the peak in the p(k) is yet undetected.

In addition to the hunt for the turn–over in the p(k), several authors have looked for “bumps” and “wiggles” in the local matter p(k). For example, Einasto et al. (1997) reported a “bump” in the cluster p(k) which could be do to excess power in the initial p(k) coming out of Inflation (a physical mechanism for such a feature however, remains unclear; see Atrio–Barandela et al. 2000). Alternatively, one may expect fluctuations in the observed p(k) because of the acoustic oscillation of baryons in the early Universe; sometimes called the “Baryon Wiggles”. Eisenstein et al. (1998) recently looked for this signature in the p(k) measurements from galaxy and cluster surveys but was unable to find a satisfactory fit between the cosmological models (with acoustic oscillations) and the data available at that time. This year, Miller et al. (2001a,b) and Percival et al. (2001) have revisited this problem and have found compelling evidence for the detection of the “Baryon Wiggles” in the local matter p(k) that is fully consistent with the detection of the same “Baryon Wiggles” in the recent CMB data (MAXIMA. DASI & BOOMERANG). This concordance is shown in detail in Fig. 6. In summary. in 2001, we have witnessed the simultaneous discovery of the “Baryon Wiggles” in the local ($`z0.1`$) and distant ($`z1000`$) Universe providing yet another major success for the Hot Big Bang cosmological model.

## 4. The X–ray Cluster Luminosity Function

In addition to studying the clustering of clusters, it is important to understand the distribution of cluster properties (i.e. the luminosity, temperature and mass functions) and how these scale with each other and as a function of redshift. This will allow us to determine if clusters are a self–similar population (i.e. their properties can be directly predicted from using just the virial theorem and hydrostatic equilbrium, see Kaiser 1986) or are there extra contributions to the energy which breaks the simple scaling laws predicted by self-similarity. In recent years, there have been significant advances in understanding these scaling relationships (Horner et al. 1999; Sheldon et al. 2001; Mathiesen 2001; Neumann & Arnaud 2001) but we can expect continued advancements over the next decade because of new X–ray (XMM & Chandra) and lensing (Joffre et al. 2000) surveys of clusters as well as more detailed Hydro/N–body cluster simulations (see Ricker & Sarazin 2001). One example is the XMM-Newton $`\mathrm{\Omega }_m`$ Project (Bartlett et al. 2001) which is designed to obtain accurate temperature measurements ($`10\%`$ error) for all of the high redshift SHARC clusters (Romer et al. 2000; Burke et al. 1997) thus obtaining an estimate of the high redshift $`L_\mathrm{x}`$$`T_\mathrm{x}`$ relation (over a decade in $`L_\mathrm{x}`$) as well as constraining $`\mathrm{\Omega }_m`$.

In the absence of a large, homogeneous sample of cluster temperatures, masses and velocity dispersions, authors have focused in recent years on the X–ray Cluster Luminosity Function (XCLF). The reader is referred to Gioia et al. (2001) and Boehringer et al. (2001) for a good recent overview of ROSAT & Einstein measurements of the XCLF as a function of redshift. The key debate with the XCLF is whether the bright–end (brighter than $`L^{}4\times 10^{44}\mathrm{erg}/\mathrm{s}`$) of the luminosity function has evolved since $`z0.8`$, thus producing a deficit of high redshift, luminous systems. As discussed by many authors, the evolution of such massive clusters is a strong constraint on $`\mathrm{\Omega }_m`$ and thus it is vital to quantify how the luminous end of the XCLF changes with look–back time (e.g. Oukbir & Blanchard 1997; Viana & Liddle 1999; Reichart et al. 1999; Borgani et al. 1999b; Henry 2001). If $`\mathrm{\Omega }_m0.2`$ (e.g. from p(k) of clusters above), then the amount of evolution out to $`z0.8`$ should be small and thus the signal we are looking for will be weak. In this case, we must be very careful about systematic uncertainties in our distant cluster surveys. Alternatively, if $`\mathrm{\Omega }_m=1`$, we expect approximately an order of magnitude decrease in the space density of $`L_\mathrm{x}=10^{45}\mathrm{erg}/\mathrm{s}`$ systems to $`z=0.8`$.

In Fig. 7, I show the bright–end of the XCLF derived from the REFLEX cluster survey (Boehringer et al. 2001) and the Bright SHARC (Romer et al. 2000; Adami et al. 2000). These are two of the most well–understood surveys of X–ray clusters available to date (in terms of their selection functions etc.). The agreement between the two is remarkable but the number of luminous clusters ($`>L^{}`$) in both surveys is still relatively small because of the tiny space densities of such clusters. Furthermore, to obtain a “high precision” measurement of the XCLF, we need to carefully model the selection functions of these, and future, surveys. This was recently emphasized by Adami et al. (2000) who performed extensive simulations of the Bright SHARC selection function and found that the shape and morphology of the clusters had a dramatic effect on the efficiency of detection. When this is combined with the effect seen in Fig. 1 – i.e. that a large fraction of high redshift clusters are likely to have signs of recent interactions (see also Henry 2001) – it becomes essential to model such effects in the selection function of any distant cluster survey. Therefore, the selection functions of future surveys will need to include cosmological (e.g. $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{\Lambda }`$), morphological (e.g. profile of clusters) and survey design (e.g. off-axis PSF) effects.

## 5. Future Cluster Surveys

As emphasized above, future cluster surveys need to improve in both quality and quantity. I highlight here four on–going efforts that will hopefully address both of these points (this is by no means a complete list). First, the MACS survey (Ebeling et al. 2001) is mining the ROSAT All–Sky Survey (RASS) for previously undiscovered high redshift ($`0.3<z<0.7`$) luminous clusters. The survey has been highly successful and has nearly 100 new massive clusters to date. Secondly, Gladders & Yee (2000) are embarked on a large–area ($`100\mathrm{d}\mathrm{e}\mathrm{g}^2`$), two–passband, optical survey in search of high redshift clusters. Their technique makes use of the fact that cluster ellipticals are strongly clustered in color and are the reddest (rest–frame) galaxies in existence. They plan to expand their technique to $`1000\mathrm{d}\mathrm{e}\mathrm{g}^2`$.

As discussed in Romer et al. (2001), the XMM data archive will be a gold–mine for searching for distant X–ray clusters. Over the life–time of the satellite, XMM is expected to serendipitously survey $`800\mathrm{d}\mathrm{e}\mathrm{g}^2`$ which should yield thousands of cluster detections. Most importantly, the XMM Cluster Survey (XCS; Romer et al. 2001) is predicted to find zero ($`\mathrm{\Omega }_m=1`$), twelve ($`\mathrm{\Omega }_m=0.3`$) or fifty ($`\mathrm{\Omega }_m=0.3+\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{\Lambda }=0.7`$) massive clusters ($`T_\mathrm{x}>6\mathrm{keV}`$) at redshifts greater than one (see Romer et al. 2001). This will provide an excellent constraint on both $`\mathrm{\Omega }_m`$ and $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ as well as providing a rich dataset of cluster temperatures and morphologies.

Finally, the Sloan Digital Sky Survey (SDSS) should produce several high quality, large–area, cluster surveys. For example, in Nichol et al. (2000), I outlined a new algorithm called “C4” which uses the 5 passband SDSS photometry and photometric redshifts, to look for clusters in a 7–dimensional space (4 colors, 2 angular, 1 radial). This removes all concerns about projection effects (see Section 2) and, when combined with the RASS data, can find clusters out to $`z0.7`$.

Before I leave this section, I will emphasize again the importance of determining the selection functions of these new surveys. As the data, procedures and algorithms used in these new surveys get more complex, then we can not naively assume the volume of these surveys is just calculated from their flux limit and their area on the sky. We will need to turn to simulations of the Universe to help us e.g. using semi–analytical, N–body techniques (see Kauffmann et al. 1999) or fast analytical approximations like PTHALO (Scoccimarro & Sheth 2001). I note here that Postman (this volume) also emphasizes the need for well–understood selection functions for distant cluster surveys.

I thank the organizers of the conference for inviting me. I would like to also thank my collaborators on the SDSS, XMM–Newton $`\mathrm{\Omega }_m`$ project, XCS and SHARC surveys. I especially thank Chris Miller, Chris Collins and Kathy Romer for their help, guidance and reading of this manuscript.

## 6. References

Abadi, M., et al. 1998, ApJ, 507, 526
Adami, C., et al. 2000, ApJS, 131, 391
Atrio-Barandela, F., et al. 2000, ApJL, see astro-ph/0012320
Bahcall, N. A. & Soneira, R. M. 1983, ApJ, 270, 20
Bartlett, J., et al. 2001, see astro-ph/0106098
Biviano, A., 2000, see stro-ph/0010409
Boehringer, H., et al. 2001, see astro-ph/0106243
Borgani, S., Plionis, M., & Kolokotronis, V. 1999a, MNRAS, 305, 866
Borgani, S., et al. 1999b, ApJ, 527, 561
Borgani, S. & Guzzo, L. 2001, Nature, 409, 39
Burke, D. J., et al. 1997, ApJ, 488, L83
Chiu, W. A., Ostriker, J. P., & Strauss, M. A. 1998, ApJ, 494, 479
Cohn, J. D., Bagla, J. S., & White, M. 2001, MNRAS, 325, 1053
Collins, C. A. et al. 2000, MNRAS, 319, 939
Croft, R. A. C., et al. 1997, MNRAS, 291, 305
Dalton, G. B. et al. 1992, ApJ, 390, L1
Dekel, A., Blumenthal, G. R., Primack, J. R., & Olivier, S. 1989, ApJ, 338, L5
Ebeling, H., Edge, A. C., & Henry, J. P. 2001, ApJ, 553, 668
Efstathiou, G. et al. 1992, MNRAS, 257, 125
Einasto, J., et al. 1997, Nature, 385, 139
Eisenstein, D. J., Hu, W., Silk, J., & Szalay, A. S. 1998, ApJ, 494, L1
Eisenstein, D. J., et al. see astro-ph/0108153
Gal, R. R., et al. 2000, AJ, 120, 540
Gioia, I. M., et al. 2001, ApJ, 553, L105
Gladders, M. D. & Yee, H. K. C. 2000, AJ, 120, 2148
Guzzo, L., 2001, see astro-ph/0102062
Haiman, Z., et al. 2001, see astro-ph/0103049
Henry, J. P., 2001, astro-ph/0109498
Horner, D. J., Mushotzky, R. F., & Scharf, C. A. 1999, ApJ, 520, 78
Huchra, J. P., Geller, M. J., Henry, J. P., & Postman, M. 1990, ApJ, 365, 66
Huterer, D., Knox, L., & Nichol, R. C. 2001, ApJ, 555, 547
Jenkins, A., et al. 2001, MNRAS, 321, 372
Joffre, M. et al. 2000, ApJ, 534, L131
Kaiser, N. 1986, MNRAS, 222, 323
Kauffmann, G. et al. 1999, MNRAS, 303, 188
Kerscher, M. et al. 2001, A&A, 377, 1
Lahav, O., Fabian, A. C., Edge, A. C., & Putney, A. 1989, MNRAS, 238, 881
Ling, E., Frenk, C., Barrow, J., 1986, MNRAS, 223, 21
Lumsden, S. L. et al. 1992, MNRAS, 258, 1
Matarrese, S., Verde, L., & Jimenez, R. 2000, ApJ, 541, 10
Mathiesen, B. F. 2001, MNRAS, 326, L1
Mathiesen, B. F. & Evrard, A. E. 2001, ApJ, 546, 100
Miller, C. J., Batuski, D. J., Slinglend, K. A., & Hill, J. M. 1999, ApJ, 523, 492
Miller, C. J., Nichol, R. C., & Batuski, D. J. 2001a, ApJ, 555, 68
Miller, C. J., Nichol, R. C., & Batuski, D. J. 2001b, Science, 292, 2302
Moscardini, L. et al. 2000, MNRAS, 314, 647
Narayanan, V. K., Berlind, A. A., & Weinberg, D. H. 2000, ApJ, 528, 1
Neumann, D. M. & Arnaud, M. 2001, A&A, 373, L33
Nichol, R. C., Briel, O. G., & Henry, J. P. 1994, MNRAS, 267, 771
Nichol, R. C. et al. 1992, MNRAS, 255, 21P
Nichol, R. C., et al. 2000, astro-ph/0011557
Oukbir, J. & Blanchard, A. 1997, A&A, 317, 1
Peacock, J., & West, M., MNRAS, 259, 494
Percival, W., 2001, MNRAS, see astro-ph/0105252
Postman, M., Huchra, J. P., & Geller, M. J. 1992, ApJ, 384, 404
Reichart, D. E., et al. 1999, ApJ, 518, 521
Ricker, P., Sarazin, C., 2001, ApJ, see astro-ph/0107210
Ritchie, B. W., Thomas, P. E., MNRAS, see astro-ph/0107374
Robinson, J., Gawiser, E., & Silk, J. 2000, ApJ, 532, 1
Roettiger, K., Burns, J. O., & Loken, C. 1996, ApJ, 473, 651
Romer, A. K. et al. 1994, Nature
Romer, A. K. et al. 2000, ApJS, 126, 209
Romer, A. K. et al. 2001, ApJ, 547, 594
Schindler, S., 2001a, see astro-ph/0109040
Schindler, S., 2001b, see astro-ph/0107008
Schuecker, P. et al. 2001, A&A, 368, 86
Scoccimarro, R., Sheth, R. K., 2001, see astro-ph/0106120
Sheldon, E. S. et al. 2001, ApJ, 554, 881
Sutherland, W. 1988, MNRAS, 234, 159
Szalay, A. S., 2001, ApJ, see astro-ph/0107419
Tegmark, M. 1999, ApJ, 514, L69
Verde, L. et al. 2001, MNRAS, 325, 412
Viana, P. T. P. & Liddle, A. R. 1999, MNRAS, 303, 535
West, M., & van der Bergh, S., 1991, 373, 1
White, S. D. M., Frenk, C. S., Davis, M., & Efstathiou, G. 1987, ApJ, 313, 505


text:
# THE THREAT TO LIFE FROM ETA CARINAE AND GAMMA-RAY BURSTS

## ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

The authors thank LeV Okun for useful comments. The partial support by the Helen Asher Fund for Space Research and by the Technion VPR Fund - Steiner Fund for the promotion of research is gratefully acknowledged.

Table I - GRBs of known redshift

Redshift $`\mathrm{z}`$. Luminosity distance, $`\mathrm{D}_\mathrm{L}`$, in Gpc. Fluence measured by BATSE, $`\mathrm{F}_\gamma `$, in $`10^5`$ erg cm<sup>-2</sup> units. Deduced spherical energy, $`\mathrm{E}_\gamma `$, in $`10^{53}`$ erg units.


text:
# Nonstandard Central Engines in Nearby Galaxies

## 1. Nuclear Activity in Nearby Galaxies

A significant fraction of local galaxies exhibit signs of nuclear activity in the form of emission-line nuclei classified as Seyferts or LINERs. According to the Palomar spectroscopic survey of nearby galaxies, 43% of all northern galaxies brighter than $`B_T=12.5`$ mag are active (Ho, Filippenko, & Sargent 1997), albeit at a level substantially weaker than traditionally studied AGNs such as classical Seyfert nuclei and quasars. The sheer abundance of low-luminosity AGNs (LLAGNs), especially LINERs which make up two-thirds of the population, compels us to give them proper attention when considering AGN issues of a statistical nature.

We do not yet have a full understanding of the physical origin of LINERs. Particularly thorny are the narrow-line objects (type 2 LINERs and transition objects), where in some cases the AGN signature can be either ambiguous or absent (Ho 2001a; Barth 2001). On the other hand, the affiliation of type 1 objects (those with detectable broad emission lines) with nonstellar processes seems quite secure. This contribution highlights some of the salient features of type 1 LLAGNs and implications we might draw concerning the nature of their central engines.

## 2. Notable Characteristics of Low-luminosity AGNs

We begin by listing some of the observational properties that are unique to LLAGNs. When observing these sources, it should be noted that one must exercise caution to obtain nuclear fluxes — the quantities most pertinent to the AGN and most analogous to observations of quasars. In general the central source is sufficiently weak that it is completely overwhelmed by emission from the host galaxy. This applies to virtually all wavelengths. In order to reliably quantify the nuclear fluxes, one needs observations with good sensitivity, and more crucially, high angular resolution (generally $`<`$1<sup>′′</sup>).

(1) Accretion luminosities and Eddington ratios. LLAGNs are not only intrinsically faint, but more importantly, their accretion luminosities are low relative to their Eddington luminosities. Ho (2002) used the nuclear X-ray luminosities of a large sample of nearby galaxies to estimate their nuclear bolometric luminosities. Figure 1a shows that $`L_{\mathrm{bol}}`$ is generally higher in Seyferts

than in LINERs, which themselves are more luminous than absorption-line nuclei (objects with no nuclear optical emission lines). Using the empirical relationship between black hole mass and bulge stellar velocity dispersion (Gebhardt et al. 2000; Ferrarese & Merritt 2000), one can obtain $`L_{\mathrm{Edd}}`$, and hence $`\lambda `$, which is a function of $`\dot{M}/\dot{M}_{\mathrm{Edd}}`$. Although the overlap is considerable, $`\lambda `$ decreases systematically from Seyferts to LINERs to absorption-line nuclei (Fig. 1b). Note, in particular, that all LINERs are characterized by $`\lambda `$ $`<`$ $`10^3`$ and most have $`\lambda `$ $`<`$ $`10^4`$. (It should be remarked that not all LLAGNs necessarily have low $`\lambda `$. A good example is NGC 4395, one of the lowest luminosity AGNs known; it has $`\lambda `$ $`>`$ $`2\times 10^3`$ according to Moran et al. 1999.)

(2) Spectral energy distributions (SEDs). With few exceptions, the SEDs of LLAGNs lack the optical–UV “big blue bump,” a feature conspicuous in unobscured high-luminosity AGNs that is attributed to thermal emission from an optically thick, geometrically thin accretion disk. This unusual property was first quantified systematically by Ho (1999), and Ho et al. (2000) noted that it is also present in AGNs with double-peaked broad emission lines. Figure 2 shows the full SEDs of the objects discussed by Ho et al. (2000), updated with NGC 4579, which Barth et al. (2001) recently discovered to belong to the same class. Another attribute of these SEDs is that they are generically “radio loud,” defined here by the convention that the radio-to-optical luminosity ratio $`R`$ exceeds a value of 10. In fact, radio loudness seems to be a property common to essentially all nearby weakly active nuclei (Ho 2001b) and a substantial fraction of Seyfert nuclei (Ho & Peng 2001). Moreover, the degree of radio loudness evidently changes systematically with accretion rate; $`R`$ increases with decreasing $`\lambda L_{\mathrm{bol}}/L_{\mathrm{Edd}}`$ (Fig. 3).

(3) Structure of accretion disk. The above-mentioned peculiar SEDs of LLAGNs cannot be readily accommodated by the predicted spectra of canonical optically

thick, geometrically thin accretion disks. The few cases that have been modeled in detail need to invoke a central structure consisting of a quasi-spherical, optically thin advection-dominated accretion flow (ADAF; see reviews by Narayan, Quataert, & Mahadevan 1998 and Quataert 2001), a concept similar to what Rees et al. (1982) called an “ion-supported torus.” ADAFs are thought to arise when the mass accretion rate drops below a critical threshold of $`\dot{M}\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}10}^2\dot{M}_{\mathrm{Edd}}`$. In addition to a puffed-up inner hot corona, the SED fits of some objects (Lasota et al. 1996; Quataert et al. 1999; Lu & Wang 2000) require a component from an outer thin disk. The inner edge of the truncated disk, or the transition radius between the inner ADAF and outer thin disk, lies at $`r`$ few $`\times (10100)R_S`$, $`R_S`$ being the Schwarzschild radius.

(4) Double-peaked broad emission lines. The ADAF + truncated disk cartoon for the central structure (see Fig. 4) is further implicated from the recent frequent detection of double-peaked broad emission lines in nearby LLAGNs (Ho et al. 2000, and references therein).

(5) X-ray Fe K$`\alpha `$ line. The X-ray spectra of LLAGNs generally require a hard power-law component with photon indices $`\mathrm{\Gamma }\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}1.7}1.9`$, but the relativistically broadened Fe K$`\alpha `$ line at 6.4 keV is either extremely weak or absent (Terashima et al. 2001). The Fe K is thought to arise from fluorescence off of cold material near the center that subtends a large solid angle, commonly interpreted to be the standard thin accretion disk. The absence of this feature in LLAGNs is consistent with the accretion-disk structure suggested by (3) and (4) above.

(6) Low-ionization state. As mentioned in § 1, the majority of nearby LLAGNs are classified as LINERs, objects with lower ionization state than Seyferts. It is notable that radio galaxies with double-peaked broad lines (e.g., Arp 102B,

3C 390.3, Pictor A) also typically have LINER-like narrow-line ratios (e.g., Eracleous & Halpern 1994).

## 3. A Unifying Physical Picture

We propose that the above set of characteristics of LLAGNs can be accommodated within the theoretical framework of an ADAF, or some closely related variant thereof (Narayan et al. 1998; Quataert 2001). The picture we envision is depicted in Figure 4: a hot, ion-supported torus or ADAF exists within some transition radius, exterior to which it illuminates a thin disk. ADAFs have radiative efficiencies much less than the canonical 10% for thin disks because they cannot cool effectively, and so they naturally produce low luminosities. Consistent with the models, the observed Eddington luminosity ratios of LINERs invariably lie below the critical threshold of $`\lambda `$ $`<`$ $`10^2`$. Several emission mechanisms (cyclo-synchrotron, inverse Compton scattering, and bremsstrahlung) give rise to the broad-band spectrum from radio to X-ray energies. With an absent or truncated thin disk, however, the accretion structure generates little or no emission from the traditional optical–UV big blue bump. Emission in this band instead comes from inverse Compton scattering of cyclo-synchrotron photons, and its strength increases sensitively with rising $`\dot{M}/\dot{M}_{\mathrm{Edd}}`$ (see e.g., Fig. 1 of Mahadevan 1997). The radio component, on the other hand, is persistently prominent because cyclo-synchrotron emission contributes significantly to the cooling budget of an ADAF. Both of these features qualitatively account for the peculiar shape of the SEDs, their generic “radio loudness,” and the inverse correlation between $`R`$ and $`\lambda `$ (Fig. 3). In detail, the steeply falling NIR–UV spectrum ($`f_\nu \nu ^\alpha `$, $`\alpha =1.52.5`$) observed in many objects (Ho 1999; Fig. 2) suggests an extra component in additional to an ADAF. This emission plausibly comes from an outer thin disk. With an inner radius located at $`r`$ few $`\times (10100)R_S`$, the disk is relatively cool: the big blue bump shifts to a “big red bump,” and the NIR–UV tail is equivalent to the soft X-ray excess component

of high-luminosity AGNs. This very same outer disk has been invoked to produce the double-peaked broad Balmer lines (e.g., Chen, Halpern, & Filippenko 1989). The outer thin disk, even when present, subtends too small a solid angle with respect to the primary X-rays from the ADAF to generate strong Fe K$`\alpha `$ emission.

Lastly, we note that low-ionization spectra may emerge quite naturally in the scenario suggested here. In the context of AGN photoionization models, it is well known that LINER-like spectra can be produced largely by lowering the “ionization parameter” $`U`$, typically by factors of $`10100`$ below those in Seyferts (e.g., Halpern & Steiner 1983; Ferland & Netzer 1983; Ho, Filippenko, & Sargent 1993). Figure 1a shows that the nuclear luminosities of LINERs indeed are at least a factor of 10 lower than in Seyferts. In fact, the weakness of the UV emission in the SEDs of LINERs suggests that the ionizing luminosity should be reduced by an even larger factor. Two other effects may be important in boosting the low-ionization lines. All else being equal, hardening the ionizing spectrum (by removing the big blue bump) in photoionization calculations creates a deeper partially ionized zone from which low-ionization transitions, especially \[O I\] $`\lambda `$$`\lambda `$6300, 6363, are created. Because of the prominence of the radio spectrum, cosmic-ray heating of the line-emitting gas by the mildly relativistic electrons in the ADAF may be nonnegligible; one effect of this process is again to enhance the low-ionization lines (Ferland & Mushotzky 1984).

### Acknowledgments.

L.C.H. acknowledges financial support through NASA grants from the Space Telescope Science Institute (operated by AURA, Inc., under NASA contract NAS5-26555).

## References

Barth, A. J. 2001, in Issues in Unification of AGNs, ed. R. Maiolino, A. Marconi, & N. Nagar (San Francisco: ASP), in press

Barth, A. J., Ho, L. C., Filippenko, A. V., Rix, H.-W., & Sargent, W. L. W. 2001, ApJ, 546, 205

Chen, K., Halpern, J. P., & Filippenko, A. V. 1989, ApJ, 339, 742

Eracleous, M., & Halpern, J. P. 1994, ApJS, 90, 1

Ferland, G. J., & Mushotzky, R. F. 1984, ApJ, 286, 42

Ferland, G. J., & Netzer, H. 1983, ApJ, 264, 105

Ferrarese, L., & Merritt, D. 2000, ApJ, 539, L9

Gebhardt, K., et al. 2000, ApJ, 539, L13

Halpern, J. P., & Steiner, J. E. 1983, ApJ, 269, L37

Ho, L. C. 1999, ApJ, 516, 672

——. 2001a, in IAU Colloq. 184, AGN Surveys, ed. R. F. Green, E. Ye. Khachikian, & D. B. Sanders (San Francisco: ASP), in press

——. 2001b, ApJ, in press

——. 2002, in preparation

Ho, L. C., et al. 2001, ApJ, 549, L51

——. 2002, in preparation

Ho, L. C., Filippenko, A. V., & Sargent, W. L. W. 1993, ApJ, 417, 63

——. 1997, ApJ, 487, 568

Ho, L. C., & Peng, C. Y. 2001, ApJ, 555, 650

Ho, L. C., Rudnick, G., Rix, H.-W., Shields, J. C., McIntosh, D. H., Filippenko, A. V., Sargent, W. L. W., & Eracleous, M. 2000, ApJ, 541, 120

Lasota, J.-P., Abramowicz, M. A., Chen, X., Krolik, J., Narayan, R., & Yi, I. 1996, ApJ, 462, 142

Lu, Y., & Wang, T. 2000, ApJ, 537, L103

Mahadevan, R. 1997, ApJ, 477, 585

Moran, E. C., Filippenko, A. V., Ho, L. C., Shields, J. C., Belloni, T., Comastri, A., Snowden, S. L., & Sramek, R. A. 1999, PASP, 111, 801

Narayan, R., Mahadevan, R., & Quataert, E. 1998, in The Theory of Black Hole Accretion Discs, ed. M. A. Abramowicz, G. Björnsson, & J. E. Pringle (Cambridge: Cambridge Univ. Press), 148

Quataert, E. 2001, in Probing the Physics of Active Galactic Nuclei by Multiwavelength Monitoring, ed. B. M. Peterson, R. S. Polidan, & R. W. Pogge (San Francisco: ASP), 71

Quataert, E., Di Matteo, T., Narayan, R., & Ho, L. C. 1999, ApJ, 525, L89

Rees, M. J., Begelman, M. C., Blandford, R. D., & Phinney, E. S. 1982, Nature, 295, 17

Shields, J. C., et al. 2001, in Probing the Physics of Active Galactic Nuclei by Multiwavelength Monitoring, ed. B. M. Peterson, R. S. Polidan, & R. W. Pogge (San Francisco: ASP), 327

Terashima, Y., Iyomoto, N., Ho, L. C., & Ptak, A. F. 2001, ApJS, in press


text:
# Physical Observables from Lattice QCD at Fixed TopologyTalk presented by J. W. Negele. Work supported in part by the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) under cooperative research agreement # DE-FC02-94ER40818, DE-FG02-96ER40945 and DE-FG02-91ER40676.

## 1 TOPOLOGICAL CHARGE SECTORS AND $`\theta `$-VACUA

In principle, one should calculate observables in QCD with finite quark masses in a fixed $`\theta `$-vacuum. However in practical lattice calculations, algorithms that change the gauge field configuration in small steps tend to become trapped in a fixed topological charge sector because they cannot overcome the action barriers between sectors. One sees concrete evidence of this problem, for example, from the large equilibration times for the topological charge required in hybrid Monte Carlo calculations, which increase as the quark mass is decreased . In addition, improved pure gauge actions, such as DBW2, reduce the low eigenmodes that are undesirable for overlap and domain wall fermions by suppressing small instantons and thereby reduce tunneling between sectors. Since we know that the restriction to fixed topology becomes irrelevant in the infinite volume limit, we have calculated the the finite volume dependence of this restriction and thereby show how to extract physical results from practical calculations at fixed topology.

The partition function of the QCD Hamiltonian $`H`$ with eigenstates $`|n,\theta `$ in a given sector may be written in tems of the lowest eigenvalue $`E_0(\theta )=Ve_0(\theta )`$ in the large volume, low temperature limit as follows:

$$Z_\theta =\text{Tr}_\theta e^{\beta H}=\underset{n}{}e^{\beta E_n(\theta )}e^{\beta Ve_0(\theta )}.$$

The partition function at fixed topological charge $`Q`$ is an integral over all $`\theta `$-vacuum sectors. Expanding the ground state energy

$$e_0(\theta )=e_0(0)+\frac{1}{2}\chi _t\theta ^2+\frac{1}{24}\gamma \theta ^4+\mathrm{},$$

and performing a saddle-point expansion to $`𝒪(1/\beta ^2V^2)`$,

$`Z_Q`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2\pi }}{\displaystyle _\pi ^\pi }𝑑\theta Z_\theta e^{i\theta Q}`$
$``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2\pi }}{\displaystyle _\pi ^\pi }𝑑\theta e^{i\theta Q}e^{\beta Ve_0(\theta )}`$
$``$ $`e^{\beta Ve_0(0)}\sqrt{{\displaystyle \frac{2\pi }{\beta V\chi _t}}}e^{\frac{Q^2}{2\beta V\chi _t}}`$
$`\times `$ $`\left[1{\displaystyle \frac{\gamma }{24\beta V\chi _t^2}}\left(3{\displaystyle \frac{6}{\chi _t}}{\displaystyle \frac{Q^2}{\beta V}}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\chi _t^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{Q^4}{\beta ^2V^2}}\right)\right]`$
Using $`Z_\theta =𝒟A𝒟\overline{\mathrm{\Psi }}𝒟\mathrm{\Psi }e^{S[A,\overline{\mathrm{\Psi }},\mathrm{\Psi }]i\theta Q[A]}`$, the parameters in the expansion of $`e_0(\theta )`$ are

$$\chi _t=\frac{Q^2}{\beta V},\gamma =\frac{Q^4\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}3}Q^2^2}{\beta V}.$$
(2)
The topological susceptibility, $`\chi _t`$, and fourth moment, $`\gamma `$, are parameters characterizing the vacuum that can be calculated in lattice QCD. Once they are known, we may use eq. (1) to calculate any observable at fixed $`Q`$ and obtain finite volume corrections.

## 2 MASS SPECTRUM IN A FIXED TOPOLOGICAL SECTOR

As a concrete example, consider the calculation of hadron masses from the large time behavior of two-point correlation functions. At sufficiently low temperature, the two-point correlation function at fixed $`Q`$ of operators $`𝒪`$ with the appropriate quantum numbers to create the hadron states of interest may be written

$`𝒪(t_1)𝒪(t_2)_Q`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{Z_Q}}{\displaystyle _\pi ^\pi }𝑑\theta e^{i\theta Q\beta Ve_0(\theta )}`$
$`\times `$ $`|0,\theta |𝒪|1,\theta |^2e^{M(\theta )(t_1t_2)},`$
where $`M(\theta )`$ is the lowest hadron mass. Performing a saddle-point expansion, the effective mass used to measure the hadron spectrum is

$`M_Q^{eff}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{d}{dt_1}}\mathrm{log}(𝒪(t_1)𝒪(t_2)_Q)`$
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{𝑑\theta e^{\frac{1}{2}Q^2\theta ^2+i\theta Q}f(\theta )M(\theta )}{𝑑\theta e^{\frac{1}{2}Q^2\theta ^2+i\theta Q}f(\theta )}}.`$
where $`f(\theta )=|0,\theta |𝒪|1,\theta |^2e^{M(\theta )(t_1t_2)}`$
contains all the time dependence. Expanding $`M(\theta )=M(0)+\frac{1}{2}M^{\prime \prime }(0)\theta ^2+\frac{1}{4!}M^{\prime \prime \prime \prime }(0)\theta ^4+\mathrm{}`$ and $`f(\theta )=f(0)+\frac{1}{2}f^{\prime \prime }(0)\theta ^2+\frac{1}{4!}f^{\prime \prime \prime \prime }(0)\theta ^4+\mathrm{}`$ we obtain the desired expansion,

$`M_Q^{eff}`$ $`=`$ $`M(0)+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}M^{\prime \prime }(0)\overline{\theta ^2}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4!}}M^{\prime \prime \prime \prime }(0)\overline{\theta ^4}`$ (3)
$`+`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{6f^{\prime \prime }(0)M^{\prime \prime }(0)}{4!f(0)}}\left[\overline{\theta ^4}(\overline{\theta ^2})^2\right],`$
where

$$\overline{\theta ^n}=\frac{𝑑\theta \mathrm{exp}(\frac{1}{2}Q^2\theta ^2+i\theta Q)\theta ^n}{𝑑\theta \mathrm{exp}(\frac{1}{2}Q^2\theta ^2+i\theta Q)}.$$

The moments required in eq. (3) are

$`\overline{\theta ^2}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{Q^2}}\left\{1{\displaystyle \frac{Q^2}{Q^2}}\right\},`$
$`\overline{\theta ^4}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{Q^2^2}}\left\{3{\displaystyle \frac{6Q^2}{Q^2}}+{\displaystyle \frac{Q^4}{Q^2^2}}\right\},`$
where $`Q^2=\beta V\chi _t`$ by eq. (2). Note that to leading order, all dependence of the mass shift on $`f(\theta )`$ exactly cancels and therefore the result is independent of $`t_1t_2`$.

Our leading order result for the $`Q`$-dependence of the mass is thus

$$M_Q^{eff}=M(0)+\frac{1}{2}\frac{M^{\prime \prime }(0)}{\beta V\chi _t}\left[1\frac{Q^2}{\beta V\chi _t}\right].$$
(4)
Therefore, if a calculation in a volume $`\beta V`$ is trapped in a $`Q`$ sector, the error is of order $`1/(\beta V)`$. Furthermore, one can measure $`M_Q`$ in several sectors and at several space-time volumes and thereby extract $`M(0)`$ , $`M^{\prime \prime }(0)`$, and $`\chi _t`$ using eq. (4). Also note that when averaged over $`Q`$ with the distribution $`e^{\frac{Q^2}{2Q^2}}`$, $`\overline{\theta ^2}=0`$.

## 3 $`\theta `$ DEPENDENCE IN THE CHIRAL AND LARGE $`N_c`$ LIMITS

It is possible to make some general arguments concerning the $`\theta `$-dependence in QCD. The transformation $`\psi ^{}=\mathrm{exp}(i\frac{\theta }{2N_f}\gamma _5)\psi `$ shifts the $`\theta `$-dependence to the mass term,

$$m\overline{\mathrm{\Psi }}\mathrm{\Psi }\overline{\mathrm{\Psi }}\left\{m\mathrm{cos}(\theta /N_f)+im\mathrm{sin}(\theta /N_f)\gamma _5\right\}\mathrm{\Psi }$$

and the contribution to the fermionic measure cancels the $`F\stackrel{~}{F}`$-term. By parity, the $`\mathrm{sin}(\theta /N_f)`$ term only contributes in even orders, so at linear order in the quark mass, the only effect of $`\theta `$ enters through the change of the mass term to $`m\mathrm{cos}(\theta /N_f)`$. Hence, for example, to leading order in the chiral limit, the pion, nucleon and $`\eta ^{}`$ masses must have the forms:

$`M_\pi ^2(\theta )`$ $`=`$ $`M_\pi ^2(0)+M_\pi ^2(0)[\mathrm{cos}(\theta /N_f)1]`$
$`M_N(\theta )`$ $`=`$ $`M_N(0)+c_1M_\pi ^2(0)[\mathrm{cos}(\theta /N_f)1]`$
$`+c_2M_\pi ^3(0)[\mathrm{cos}^{3/2}(\theta /N_f)1]`$
$`M_\eta ^{}^2(\theta )`$ $`=`$ $`M_\eta ^{}^2(0)+b_1M_\pi ^2(0)[\mathrm{cos}(\theta /N_f)1]`$
from which the $`Q`$-dependence follows directly from eq. (4). In the large $`N_c`$ limit, it can be shown that $`b_1=1`$ so that the $`\pi `$ and $`\eta ^{}`$ have the same $`\theta `$-dependence and thus the same $`Q`$-dependence.

Using chiral perturbation theory, one can explore the chiral and large $`N_c`$ limits more systematically. Using the effective Lagrangian proposed by Witten  to treat the $`U_A(1)`$ anomaly, we obtain the following results for the $`\pi `$ and $`\eta ^{}`$ masses:

$`M_\pi ^2`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{2m\overline{\mathrm{\Psi }}\mathrm{\Psi }}{N_fF_\pi ^2}}\mathrm{cos}\left({\displaystyle \frac{\eta _0^{}}{F_\pi }}\sqrt{{\displaystyle \frac{2}{N_f}}}{\displaystyle \frac{\theta }{N_f}}\right)`$
$`M_\eta ^{}^2`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{m_0^2}{N_c}}+{\displaystyle \frac{2m\overline{\mathrm{\Psi }}\mathrm{\Psi }}{N_fF_\pi ^2}}\mathrm{cos}\left({\displaystyle \frac{\eta _0^{}}{F_\pi }}\sqrt{{\displaystyle \frac{2}{N_f}}}{\displaystyle \frac{\theta }{N_f}}\right)`$
where
$`e_0(\theta )=m\overline{\mathrm{\Psi }}\mathrm{\Psi }\mathrm{cos}\left(\frac{\eta ^{}}{F_\pi }\sqrt{\frac{2}{N_f}}\frac{\theta }{N_f}\right)+\frac{m_0^2}{2N_c}\eta _{}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}.`$ Solving explicitly for $`\eta _0^{}`$, we also note that in the limit $`m0`$, we recover $`\mathrm{cos}\left(\frac{\theta }{N_f}\right)`$ and in the limit $`N_c\mathrm{}`$ we obtain $`\mathrm{cos}\left(\frac{m_0^2F_\pi ^2\theta }{2m\overline{\psi }\psi N_c}\right)1`$ as $`N_c\mathrm{}`$ as expected.

## 4 Q – DEPENDENCE IN AN <br>INSTANTON GAS

Recently, the dependence of the $`\pi `$ and $`\eta ^{}`$ masses on $`Q`$ has been studied in lattice calculations , which for practical reasons, are sufficiently far from the chiral limit that the previous results from chiral perturbation theory are inapplicable. Each mass was evaluated in two sectors, one with $`|Q|<1.5`$ and the other with $`|Q|>1.5`$. Whereas the pion mass in both sectors agreed within statistics of a few percent, the $`\eta ^{}`$ mass was of the order of 15 % heavier in the $`|Q|>1.5`$ sector than in the $`|Q|<1.5`$ sector. Motivated by the success of the Veneziano-Witten formula   relating the $`\eta ^{}`$ mass to fluctuations in the topological charge, we obtain a qualitative understanding of the Q dependence from the fluctuations in the topological charge arising in an instanton gas.

The vertex generating the shift in the $`\eta ^{}`$ mass is proportional to the number of instantons, $`N`$, plus the number of antiinstantons, $`\overline{N}`$. Assuming independent Poisson distributions with $`N=\overline{N}=\lambda `$, the probability of having $`N`$ instantons and $`\overline{N}`$ antiinstantons with the constraint $`N\overline{N}=Q`$ is:

$$P_Q(N,\overline{N})=\frac{d\theta }{2\pi }\frac{\lambda ^{(N+\overline{N})}}{N!\overline{N}!}e^{2\lambda i\theta (QN+\overline{N})}$$

Summing over $`N`$ and $`\overline{N}`$ and distinguishing $`\lambda `$ and $`\lambda ^{}`$ for subsequent convenience, we write the generating function

$`Z_Q(\lambda ,\lambda ^{})`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{N,\overline{N}}{}}{\displaystyle \frac{d\theta }{2\pi }\frac{\lambda _{}^{}{}_{}{}^{(N+\overline{N})}}{N!\overline{N}!}e^{2\lambda i\theta (QN+\overline{N})}}`$
$`=`$ $`e^{2\lambda }{\displaystyle \frac{d\theta }{2\pi }e^{i\theta Q+2\lambda ^{}\mathrm{cos}(\theta )}}`$
$``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2\sqrt{\pi \lambda ^{}}}}e^{2(\lambda ^{}\lambda )}e^{\frac{Q^2}{4\lambda ^{}}}`$
Differentiation of $`\mathrm{ln}Z_Q(\lambda ,\lambda ^{})`$ with respect to $`\lambda ^{}`$, setting $`\lambda =\lambda ^{}`$, and noting $`2\lambda =Q^2=\chi _t\beta V`$ yields the desired result for the density of instantons plus antiinstantons at fixed Q:

$$\frac{N+\overline{N}_Q}{\beta V}=\chi _t+\frac{1}{2\beta V}\left[1+\frac{Q^2}{\chi _t\beta V}\right]$$
(5)
Eq. 5 is a simple and physically appealing result. Since $`M_\eta ^{}^2=M_\pi ^2+\mu `$ and $`\mu \frac{N+\overline{N}_Q}{\beta V}`$, which equals $`\chi _t`$ when averaged over the distribution $`P(Q)=\frac{1}{2\sqrt{\pi \lambda }}e^{\frac{Q^2}{4\lambda }}`$, the $`\eta ^{}`$ mass is consistent with the Veneziano-Witten formula. The finite volume corrections provide the desired Q dependence.

To compare with the lattice results of ref , we note that $`\beta V=6.81fm^4`$, $`\chi _t=0.70fm^4`$, and $`Q^2=\beta V\chi _t=4.75`$. In the chiral limit, $`M_\pi ^{eff}(Q)=M_\pi (0)\frac{M_\pi }{4N_f^2}\left[\frac{1}{Q^2}\left(1\frac{Q^2}{Q^2}\right)\right]`$ so the shift at $`Q^2=0`$ is $`M_\pi /(4N_f^2Q^2)=0.013M_\pi `$. Hence, the effect of calculation at fixed topology is of the order of 1%, consistent with the lattice $`\pi `$ results. The analogous chiral estimate for the $`\eta ^{}`$ is of order $`(M_\pi /M_\eta ^{})^2\times 1\%`$, in strong disagreement with lattice results. However, using the instanton gas result, $`𝑑qP(Q)\frac{N+\overline{N}_Q}{\beta V}`$ is 0.65 for $`Q<1.5`$ and 0.75 for $`Q>1.5`$, yielding $`\delta M_\eta ^{}/M_\eta ^{}=8\%`$, which is of the order of magnitude of the observed $`Q`$ dependence.


text:
# Defining statistical ensembles of random graphsTalk at the workshop ”Discrete random geometries and quantum gravity”, Utrecht, October 2001

## 1 Introduction

This is a workshop talk and therefore I do not hesitate to report about partial results of a research still in progress. I shall also submit you a couple of queries, with the hope of attracting your interest and triggering a discussion. I have benefited from collaboration with Z. Burda, the late J.D. Correia and J. Jurkiewicz (cf ref.  and papers quoted therein).

Let me recall that a graph is just a collection of vertices (nodes) and links (edges) connecting vertices. It is a mathematical idealization representing various networks one encounters in nature, in social life, in engineering, etc. For example, the web can be represented by a graph: the vertices are the URLs and the links are the hyperlinks. Likewise, the network of sexual relations in a population can be represented by a graph. The study of its geometry has some interest for epidemiology. In these examples, as in many other ones, the pattern of connections between vertices is fairly random. The concept of a random graph emerges quite naturally. For definiteness, I shall consider graphs with undirected links only.

When one is talking about random graphs, one has of course in mind a statistical ensemble of graphs. How to define such an ensemble? The simplest answer is given in the framework of the classical model developed by Erdös, Rényi and their followers : in a set of $`N`$ vertices one connects at random $`L`$ out of $`N(N1)/2`$ possible pairs of vertices. All possible graphs constructed that way form the ensemble in question. The probability $`p`$ to connect a pair of vertices is the control parameter of the model. The geometry of graphs changes in a very interesting and by now fully understood manner when $`p`$ changes. However, in this ensemble the distribution of connectivity (vertex degree) is always Poissonian.

It turns out that connectivity distributions very different from Poissonian are observed in a variety of observed networks. In particular, in a number of interesting networks this distribution has a tail falling like a power of the vertex degree. These networks have been baptized scale-free by Barabási and Albert . The properties of scale-free networks are commonly discussed in the framework of simple growth models (where the connectivity distribution becomes stationary and scale-free at large time). These models are invaluable for illustrating basic dynamical mechanisms, like the preferential attachment rule. However, they are not fully realistic. For a variety of reasons one would like to understand the generic geometries of wide classes of graphs. This can be presumably better achieved by defining consistently the corresponding statistical ensembles, instead of producing more and more complicated growing network models.

The aim of this talk is to discuss problems one encounters trying to define a statistical ensemble of random graphs with an a priori given connectivity distribution. The definition can be more or less formal. It can be implicit, reducing to the formulation of an algorithm enabling one to sample graphs, for example with the help of a computer.

## 2 The Molloy-Reed construction

Let $`p_n`$ denote here the connectivity distribution. In ref.  Molloy and Reed propose a specific method of constructing graphs with a given $`p_n`$. They proceed in two steps:

(a) First, $`N`$ auxiliary graphs are created. The number of links of an auxiliary graph is randomly generated from the probability distribution $`p_n`$. By construction all these links meet at a common vertex and have the other end free. The number of free-end links in the full set of auxiliary graphs must be even, otherwise one restarts the construction.

(b) Second, in the full set of $`N`$ auxiliary graphs the successive pairs of free link ends are picked at random and connected, until no free link end remains.

In this manner, one creates a single graph with vertex degrees $`n_1,n_2,\mathrm{}n_N`$. Notice, that the number of links of that graph $`L=1/2_jn_j`$ is not kept fixed. In the ensemble of graphs it does fluctuate around the average value $`1/2Nn`$, where $`\mathrm{}=_n\mathrm{}p_n`$. This is perhaps a weak point of the construction, since $`L/N`$ is a sensitive parameter in graph theory. On the other hand, it is very pleasant that the connectivity distribution matches $`p_n`$ for individual graphs.

Notice also that these graphs are, in general, not connected. Furthermore, they are, in general, ”degenerate”: there may be multiple connections between vertices and certain links may connect a vertex to itself 111I met the opinion that in this construction the degenerate graphs become unimportant in the limit $`N\mathrm{}`$. This is false. It is easy to count graphs. When $`N\mathrm{}`$ and $`x=L/N`$ is kept fixed, the non-degenerate graphs are a finite fraction, viz. $`\mathrm{exp}[2x(1+x)]`$, of all possible graphs.. For a given set $`n_1,n_2,\mathrm{}n_N`$ a non-degenerate graph may simply not exist. Moreover, enforcing non-degeneracy, when it is possible, introduces a bias. Although in each graph the connectivity distribution matches $`p_n`$ up to fluctuations, significant deviations from $`p_n`$ can appear, when the distribution is calculated for a large ensemble of graphs, if certain fluctuations are systematically favoured. This remark is particularly pertinent to the case of scale-free graphs, where the connectivity distribution has a long tail, subject to important fluctuations.

## 3 Minifield theory: random graphs and Feynman diagrams

The minifield theory is defined by the following formal integral

$$Z𝑑\varphi \mathrm{exp}\frac{1}{\kappa }[\varphi ^2/2\lambda +\underset{n}{}p_n\varphi ^n]$$
(1)
where the integration variable $`\varphi `$ is a real number, $`\kappa ,\lambda ,p_1>0`$ and $`p_n0`$ for $`n>1`$. Although, strictly speaking, the integral does not exist, the perturbative expansion of $`Z`$ in powers of the ”couplings” $`p_n`$ is well defined. As in field theory, the individual terms of the expansion can be represented by Feynman diagrams. The ”propagator” equals $`\lambda `$, $`\kappa `$ plays the role of the Planck constant and $`p_1`$ that of an ”external current” (a pedagogical presentation for people not very familiar with field theory methods can be found in ).

The idea is to identify the Feynman diagrams of this toy model with the graphs of a statistical ensemble. Indeed, the Feynman diagrams of the minifield theory are the graphs familiar to people working on networks, except that there is a specific weight - the ”Feynman amplitude” - attached to each graph. In the ”semiclassical limit” $`\kappa 0`$ only tree graphs survive and the model is exactly solvable.

According to the Feynman rules, the weight of a non-degenerate graph with $`N`$ vertices and $`L`$ links is

$$weight=\kappa ^{LN}\frac{\lambda ^L}{N!}\underset{j=1}{\overset{N}{}}[p_{n_j}n_j!]$$
(2)
In the presence of degeneracies one has to multiply the rhs by the standard symmetry factors. Actually, the construction of Feynman diagrams does not differ from the construction of graphs following the Molloy-Reed recipe. Here, the auxiliary graphs are those defined by the ”interactions” $`p_n\varphi ^n`$. However, the weight factor $`\kappa ^{LN}\lambda ^L/N!`$ does not appear there; the fluctuations of $`L`$ result from fluctuations of the generated vertex degrees. In contrast, we introduce here a specific fugacity of links $`\lambda `$ and a parameter, $`\kappa `$, controlling the number of loops in connected components.

The following Metropolis algorithm generates graphs with fixed $`N`$ and $`L`$: one picks a random link $`\stackrel{}{ij}`$ and a random vertex $`ki,j`$ and one rewires $`\stackrel{}{ij}\stackrel{}{ik}`$ with probability

$$P_{rewire}=(n_k+1)R(n_k+1)/n_jR(n_j)$$
(3)
when the rhs above is less than unity, and with probability equal to one otherwise. Here $`R(n)=p_n/p_{n1}`$. When $`n_j=1`$, the attempt is rejected, so that vertices with zero connectivity are never created. The rhs of (3) follows from (2) and the detailed balance condition. It turns out, that this last condition insures that the symmetry factors in the weights of degenerate graphs come out correctly too.

The presence of the factor $`(n_k+1)/n_j`$ on the rhs of (3) means that the rewired vertices are sampled independently of their degree. Furthermore, the rewiring depends on the vertex degrees only and is insensitive to the rest of the underlying graph structure. Hence, as far as the distribution of vertex degrees is concerned, the model is isomorphic to the well known balls-in-boxes model , defined by the partition function

$$z\underset{n_j}{}p(n_1)\mathrm{}p(n_N)\delta (M\underset{j=1}{\overset{N}{}}n_j)$$
(4)
and describing $`M`$ balls distributed with probability $`p_n`$ among $`N`$ boxes (in our case $`M=2L`$). The constraint represented by the Kronecker delta on the rhs of (4) is satisfied ”for free” when $`N\mathrm{}`$ by virtue of Khintchin’s law of large numbers, provided $`n<\mathrm{}`$ and $`M/N=n`$. When the last condition is met the occupation number distribution of a single box is just $`p_n`$.

Consequently, in the statistical ensemble including degenerate graphs the connectivity distribution is $`p_n`$ provided the number of links is set to $`L=1/2Nn`$ (notice, that it is the average number of links in the Molloy-Reed construction). It is easy to calculate the number of such graphs for fixed $`L/N`$ . It increases with $`N`$ like $`\mathrm{exp}[\text{const}N\mathrm{log}N]`$, the ensemble is overextensive 222 The ensemble of non-degenerate graphs is overextensive too (cf the footnote on p. 3); it becomes extensive in the limit $`\kappa 0`$, ie for tree graphs.. Hence, it is not guaranteed that the connectivity distribution is $`p_n`$ for individual graphs, it is so when one averages over the ensemble. This should not be a serious flaw in applications.

The algorithm works also very well for trees. It suffices to start with a tree graph, for example with a polyline, and impose the constraint that $`n_i=1`$. Then, all successively generated graphs are also trees. As already mentioned, the model is analytically solvable when one limits one’s attention to tree graphs. One can show exactly that in this case the connectivity distribution is $`np_n`$ 333The following heuristic argument can help to understand that: trees can always be embedded in a plane. They are obtained by gluing successive vertices (auxiliary graphs). But each vertex with $`n`$ links attached to it could have been rotated in the plane up to $`n`$ times before beeing glued to the tree it belongs to and this rotation would not affect the result. Consequently, the weight of a vertex is $`np_n`$ instead of $`p_n`$, because of this specific symmetry.. Hence, in order to get an a priori given connectivity distribution $`P_n`$ one should set the couplings of the tree model to $`p_nP_n/n`$.

A fairly comprehensive discussion of the ensemble of random tree graphs is presented in , with emphasis on the hot problem of scale-free graphs. I shall not enter into this discussion here, apart from the few words to follow. The partition function (1) can be calculated in the saddle point (”semi-classical”) approximation. The saddle point condition, identical to a familiar equation in polymer physics, is a starting point for further calculations. In particular, one can find the fractal dimension $`d_H`$ of the tree graphs. This was first done in  for the so-called generic case, with the result $`d_H=2`$. For scale-free graphs the connectivity distribution falls like $`n^\beta `$ and one finds  in the empirically interesting situation $`2<\beta 3`$:

$$d_H=(\beta 1)/(\beta 2)$$
(5)
while $`d_H=2`$ again for $`\beta >3`$. An infinite $`d_H`$ is found in the rather special case, where a singular vertex with fixed degree of order $`O(N)`$ is present in (almost) all trees of the ensemble 444The Cayley tree, a graph with a minimal entropy in our ensemble, also has $`d_H=\mathrm{}`$..

It is very easy to supplement the algoritm with a constraint insuring that all produced graphs are non-degenerate. However, this introduces a bias. We do not know yet how to choose the input data, ie the couplings $`p_n`$, in order to get at the output a desired connectivity distribution. The problem is solved for degenerate graphs and for trees, as stated above, but for non-degenerate graphs it remains open:

Query : What are the minifield theory couplings $`p_n`$ leading to a given connectivity distribution in the ensemble of non-degenerate graphs ?

The ensemble of graphs defined by (1) is fairly general, but not the most general one: the weight of a graph is a product of factors corresponding to individual vertices. One can introduce correlations between neighbor vertices replacing (1) by

$$Zd^q\varphi \mathrm{exp}\frac{1}{\kappa }[\stackrel{}{\varphi }A\stackrel{}{\varphi }+\underset{n=1}{\overset{q}{}}\varphi _n^n]$$
(6)
where $`\stackrel{}{\varphi }=(\varphi _1,\varphi _2,\mathrm{},\varphi _q)`$ and $`A`$ is some $`q\times q`$ symmetric matrix with positive elements. The cut-off $`q`$ can be eventually sent to infinity (but in order to study the tree content of the model the limit $`\kappa 0`$ should be taken first). This model has not been studied yet:

Query: What are the properties of the ensemble defined by (6), for reasonable choices of the correlation inducing matrix $`A`$ ? Even a study of the ”semiclassical” limit alone would be of interest.

## 4 Growing networks

Recently, much activity has been devoted to the formulation of growing network algorithms producing the so-called scale-free graphs (see, for example, refs. ). In these models and at large ”time” the average connectivity becomes stationary, except for the tail where finite size (time!) corrections are felt. A repeated use of such a growing network algorithm defines a statistical ensemble and, with this strategy, it is not difficult to produce non-degenerate graphs only. The connectivity distribution cannot be chosen at will, it has a shape specific to the model at hand. But one can usually adjust the parameters of the algorithm to control the large vertex degree behavior. The major problem with this approach is that it is difficult to decide whether the results one obtains are generic or just reflect the specific dynamics of a rather simple model.

Let me illustrate this point with an example in the next section.

## 5 Graph diameters

Consider tree graphs with connectivity distribution

$$P_n=\frac{4}{n(n+1)(n+2)}$$
(7)
They can be generated by the Barabasi-Albert growing network recipe , or by the algorithm presented in Sec. 3, provided the couplings are set to

$`p_n=P_n/n`$. For a given graph let $`n(r)`$ denote the number of vertices separated by geodesic distance $`r`$ from a randomly chosen ”reference” vertex. Averaging over the ensemble of graphs one is interested in and over the possible choices of the ”reference” vertex, one gets a specific ”two-point function” $`n(r)`$, which can be used to define the average diameter of a graph. All this is easily done on a computer. The result, illustrated in Figs 1 and 2, is that $`n(r)`$ is very different in the two models. In the Barabasi-Albert model the graph diameter grows like $`\mathrm{log}N`$, while in the model of Sec. 3 it grows like a power of $`N`$ (see Fig. 3). Manifestly, the Barabasi-Albert model explores only a fraction of available phase-space. This is simply explained: the vertices of highest degree are the oldest ones and tend in this model to be close to each other. Consequently, the distance between other vertices is also much smaller than in a truly random tree. Another deviation from randomness in growing networks was observed earlier by Callaway et al .

Incidentally, it appears that $`r\mathrm{log}N`$ in the ensemble of degenerate graphs with the same $`P_n`$ generated by the algorithm of Sec. 3 (see Fig. 4). Intuitively it is obvious that the growth of the diameter becomes slower when loops can be formed often enough since they produce ”shortcuts”.

Actually, the ”small world” behavior $`r\mathrm{log}N`$ is found in a large variety of networks. I do not know any rigorous derivation of this result in a sufficiently general context. In the network community one often refers to ref. . Unfortunately, although ref.  is otherwise an interesting paper, their derivation of this logarithmic growth is mathematically incorrect. They have in mind the Molloy-Reed construction, but they actually consider tree graphs with uncorrelated vertex degrees, and for such trees the diameter usually grows as a power of $`N`$.

To see the mistake, notice that for a given ”reference” vertex one has

$$1+n(1)+n(2)+\mathrm{}+n(r_{max})=N$$
(8)
Newman et al replace all the quantities in (8) by their bulk average values. However, this is, in general, illegal. With each ”reference” point is associated a specific sequence $`n(1),n(2),\mathrm{}`$. The conditional probability that $`n(r)=k`$ differs from the bulk probability that a vertex has $`k`$ $`r^{th}`$-near-neighbors. It depends on the sequence leading to $`n(r)`$. One has to attach probability measures to possible sequences in graphs and also to graphs. The problem is not trivial but it was solved by Ambjørn et al  precisely for the class of connected tree graphs considered in ref. . The result is that generically the Haussdorf dimension is finite and therefore the graph diameter grows like a power of $`N`$, as already mentioned. Hence, I end this talk with another query:

Query: What are the general conditions insuring that the ”small world” behavior $`r\mathrm{log}N`$ does actually hold as an exact result for $`N\mathrm{}`$ ?

A nice theorem awaits for being formulated and proved!

I wish to thank Serguei Dorogovtsev for pointing out to me that an argument used in the original version of this text is spurious.