text:
# The Inner Structure of Cold Dark Matter Halos

## 1. Introduction

Cosmological N-body simulations have led to impressive strides in our understanding of structure formation in universes dominated by collisionless dark matter. The impact of such simulations has been greatest in the highly non-linear regime, where analytic calculations offer little guidance. Recently, and as a result of the development of efficient algorithms and of the advent of powerful, massively parallel computer arrays, it has been possible to apply N-body studies to detailed investigations of structure on small scales. These studies can now probe scales comparable to the luminous radii of individual galaxies, thus enabling direct comparison between theory and observation in regions where luminous dynamical tracers are abundant and easiest to observe. Predicting the structure of dark matter halos on kpc and sub-kpc scales, where it can be compared directly with observations of galactic dynamics, is one of the premier goals of N-body experiments, and there has been steady progress in this area over the past few years.

Building upon the early work of Frenk et al (1988), Quinn, Salmon & Zurek (1986), Dubinski & Carlberg (1991) and Crone, Evrard & Richstone (1993), Navarro, Frenk & White (1996, 1997, hereafter NFW) found that, independent of mass and of the value of the cosmological parameters, the density profiles of dark matter halos formed in various hierarchical clustering cosmogonies were strikingly similar. This ‘universal’ structure can be characterized by a spherically-averaged density profile which differs substantially from the simple power-laws, $`\rho (r)r^\beta `$, predicted by early theoretical studies (Gunn & Gott 1972, Fillmore & Goldreich 1984, Hoffmann & Shaham 1985, White & Zaritsky 1992). The profile steepens monotonically with radius, with logarithmic slopes shallower than isothermal (i.e. $`\beta <2`$) near the center, but steeper than isothermal ($`\beta >2`$) in the outer regions.

NFW proposed a simple formula,

$$\frac{\rho (r)}{\rho _{\mathrm{crit}}}=\frac{\delta _c}{(r/r_s)(1+r/r_s)^2},$$
(1)
which describes the density profile of any halo with only two parameters, a characteristic density contrast111I use the term ‘density contrast’ to denote densities expressed in units of the critical density for closure, $`\rho _{\mathrm{crit}}=3H^2/8\pi G`$. I express the present value of Hubble’s constant as $`H(z=0)=H_0=100h`$ km s-1 Mpc-1, $`\delta _c`$, and a scale radius, $`r_s`$. Note that there is no well defined value for the central density of the dark matter, which can in principle climb to arbitrarily large values near the center. This is an important point, especially because there have been a number of reports in the literature arguing that the shape of the rotation curves of many disk galaxies rules out steeply divergent dark matter density profiles (Flores & Primack 1994, Moore 1994, McGaugh et al 1998, de Blok et al 2001).

The results of NFW have been confirmed by a number of subsequent studies (see, e.g., Cole & Lacey 1996, Huss, Jain & Steinmetz 1999, Jing & Suto 2000), although there is some disagreement about the innermost value of the logarithmic slope. Moore et al. (1998), Ghigna et al. (2000), and Fukushige & Makino (1997, 2001) have argued that density profiles diverge near the center with logarithmic slopes steeper than the asymptotic value of $`\beta =1`$ in NFW’s formula. Since steep inner slopes are apparently disfavored by rotation curve data it is important to establish this result conclusively; if confirmed, it may offer a way to falsify the CDM paradigm on small scales.

Unfortunately, observational constraints are strongest just where theoretical predictions are least trustworthy. For example, the alleged disagreement between observed rotation curves and cuspy dark halo models is most evident in sub-$`L_{}`$ galaxies on scales of $`1h^1`$ kpc or less. For typical circular speeds of $`100`$ km s-1, this corresponds to regions where the density contrast exceeds $`10^6`$. Orbital times in these regions are of order $`10^3`$ of the age of the universe, implying that N-body codes must be able to follow particles accurately for several thousand orbits. Few cosmological codes have been tested in a systematic way under such circumstances. Extreme care is thus needed to separate numerical artifacts from the true predictions of the Cold Dark Matter model.

Furthermore, there are no simulations (with adequate resolution) of dark matter halos with masses comparable to the dwarf galaxies where the disagreement between theory and observation is most evident. So far, published work has relied upon extrapolation of results obtained for massive galaxy halos and galaxy clusters, hardly an ideal procedure for assessing the viability of the ruling CDM paradigm on small scales. In order to validate or ‘rule out’ the CDM cosmogony one must be certain that model predictions on the relevant scales are accurate, robust, and free of systematic numerical uncertainties.

## 2. Numerical Convergence Criteria

Motivated by this state of affairs, we have undertaken a large series of numerical simulations designed to clarify the role of numerical parameters on the structure of simulated cold dark matter halos. What regions of a simulated dark matter halo in virial equilibrium can be considered reliably resolved? Our tests explore the influence of the gravitational softening, the time-stepping algorithm, the starting redshift, the accuracy of force computations, and the number of particles on the spherically-averaged mass profile of a galaxy-sized halo in the $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$CDM cosmogony. A thorough discussion of the tests is presented in Power et al (2001); I summarize below a list of conditions that must be satisfied in order to consider the mass profile reliably resolved at a given radius:

* The timestep must be substantially shorter than the orbital timescale: $`t_{\mathrm{circ}}(r)>15\left(N_{\mathrm{\Delta }t}\right)^{5/6}t_{\mathrm{circ}}(r_{200})`$, where $`N_{\mathrm{\Delta }t}`$ is the total number of timesteps, $`t_{\mathrm{circ}}(r)=2\pi r/V_c(r)`$ is the circular orbit timescale, and $`r_{200}`$ is the virial radius, where the mean density contrast is $`200`$. This criterion applies provided that the gravitational softening spline scalelength, $`ϵ`$, is chosen to ensure that particle discreteness effects are negligible, $`ϵ>4r_{200}/\sqrt{N_{200}}`$, where $`N_{200}`$ is the number of particles within the virial radius. Smaller softenings require substantially smaller timesteps for convergence.
* Accelerations do not exceed a characteristic value imprinted by the circular speed of the halo, $`V_{200}`$, and by the softening scale: $`a(r)=V_c^2(r)/r<a_ϵ=\chi _ϵV_{200}^2/ϵ`$, with $`\chi _ϵ0.5`$.
* Enough particles are enclosed so that the collisional relaxation timescale, $`t_{\mathrm{relax}}=(r/V_c(r))N(r)/(8\mathrm{ln}\mathrm{\Lambda }_\mathrm{C})`$, is comparable to the age of the universe, $`t_0`$. Empirically, we find that regions where $`t_{\mathrm{relax}}>0.3t_0`$ are adequately resolved. ($`N(r)`$ is the enclosed number of particles and $`\mathrm{ln}\mathrm{\Lambda }_\mathrm{C}\mathrm{ln}N(r)`$ is the usual Coulomb logarithm.)

Convergence also requires that at the initial redshift, $`z_i`$, the linear rms fluctuations on the smallest resolved mass scale (the particle mass $`m_p`$) is $`\sigma (m_p,z_i)<0.3`$, and that force calculations are highly accurate. Poor spatial, time, or force resolution leads generally to systems with artificially low central density, but may also result in the formation of artificially dense central cusps. This feature must be monitored carefully in hierarchical clustering simulations, since cusps formed in poorly-resolved high-redshift progenitors may survive merging and compromise the inner structure of present-day systems.

The most stringent requirement for convergence is that imposed on the particle number by the collisional relaxation criterion, which implies that in order to estimate accurate circular velocities at radii as small as $`1\%`$ of $`r_{200}`$, where the density contrast may reach $`10^6`$, the region must enclose at least $`3,000`$ particles (or more than a few times $`10^6`$ within the virial radius). We can use these criteria to identify regions of simulated dark halos where the mass profiles are unlikely to be affected by numerical artifacts.

## 3. Phase-Space Density Profiles

As discussed in §1, there is at present no broad consensus regarding how steep the innermost slope of dark matter density profiles is, or even whether there is a well-defined value for the asymptotic innermost slope. Unfortunately, the results of the previous section make it clear that it will take extraordinary computational effort to reach a robust resolution of the controversy. What is required is a statistically significant sample of galaxy-sized halos simulated with sub-kpc resolution; this is an extremely onerous computational task that will stretch the capabilities of the most powerful massively parallel computers. Steps in this direction are currently being taken, but it will take some time until these efforts yield conclusive results.

From the theoretical point of view, a number of plausible arguments have been advanced in order to try and explain the innermost behaviour of dark matter density profiles from stellar dynamical principles. These efforts, however, tend to give non-unique results and have so far been unable to explain the remarkable similarity in the structure of dark matter halos of widely different mass formed in a variety of cosmogonies (Evans & Collett 1997, Syer & White 1998, Nusser & Sheth 1999, Lokas & Hoffman 2000).

We have recently explored an empirical alternative to analytic efforts addressed at estimating the innermost slope of the density profile (Taylor & Navarro 2001, hereafter TN). Our approach exploits the similarity between the phase-space density profiles (defined here as the ratio of density to velocity dispersion cubed, $`\rho /\sigma ^3`$, measured in spherical shells) of CDM halos and of the self-similar solution for spherical collapse in an expanding universe found by Bertschinger (1985). This offers an attractive scenario for understanding the shape of halo density profiles as well as a powerful tool for estimating their slope near the center.

Figure 1a shows the spherically-averaged phase-space density profile of three simulated CDM halos. Two of these halos have been identified in simulations of the former “standard” CDM cosmogony (SCDM, $`\mathrm{\Omega }_m=1,\mathrm{\Lambda }=0,h=0.5,\sigma _8=0.7`$) and have circular velocities of $`180`$ and $`160`$ km s-1, respectively. These two halos are part of the “Local Group” simulation reported by Moore et al. (1999). The third halo has a circular velocity of $`200`$ km s-1 and was run in the currently popular $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$CDM cosmogony ($`\mathrm{\Omega }_m=0.3,\mathrm{\Lambda }=0.7,h=0.65,\sigma _8=0.9`$). Solid (dashed) lines are used for the SCDM ($`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$CDM) halos. For ease of comparison, we have chosen to normalize $`\rho /\sigma ^3`$ so that all three curves coincide at $`0.01r_{200}`$. All three systems have $`10^6`$ particles within $`r_{200}`$ and are amongst the highest resolution simulations available at present. The important point illustrated by Figure 1a is that, over more than two decades in radius, the phase-space density profile is very well approximated by a power law of slope $`1.875`$ (solid straight line). This is quite remarkable, given that both the density profiles (shown in Figure 1b) and the velocity dispersion profiles of these halos deviate substantially from simple power laws.

Also remarkable is that this power-law coincides with the self-similar solution derived by Bertschinger (1985) for secondary infall onto a spherical perturbation in an unperturbed Einstein-de Sitter universe: Bertschinger’s solution is plotted with solid circles in Figure 1. The solution corresponds to the self-similar equilibrium configuration of a $`\gamma =5/3`$ gas formed by spherical accretion onto a point-mass perturber in an otherwise uniform Einstein-de Sitter universe. The quantity shown by the solid circles in Figure 1a, $`\rho ^{5/2}/P^{3/2}`$, is roughly equivalent to the phase-space density ($`P`$ is the local pressure). As discussed by Bertschinger, this solution is the most appropriate to compare with our numerical results for CDM halos, given that the velocity dispersion tensor in this case is only mildly anisotropic. Radii are normalized assuming that $`r_{200}`$ equals the shock radius of the self-similar solution, which corresponds to roughly one-third of the turnaround radius. The vertical normalization is arbitrary and has been chosen to match the N-body results. Taking $`(\rho /\sigma ^3)\rho ^{5/2}/P^{3/2}(T/\rho ^{\gamma 1})^{5/2\gamma }`$ to be a measure of the local ‘entropy’ of the system, Figure 1a shows that CDM halos have the same radial entropy stratification as the simple spherical collapse solution. It is possible that this power-law stratification is a fundamental property which underlies the similarity of structure of cold dark matter halos.

Density profiles consistent with the power-law phase-space density profile shown in Figure 1a can be obtained by assuming hydrostatic equilibrium. The isotropic Jeans equation admits a family of solutions for the density profile under the constraint $`\rho /\sigma ^3r^\alpha `$. The family is controlled by a single parameter, which can be expressed in terms of the ratio of the circular velocity to the 1-D velocity dispersion at $`r_p`$, the radius where the circular velocity peaks ($`\kappa ^{1/2}=V_c(r_p)/\sigma (r_p)`$). For $`\kappa =\alpha =1.875`$, the family includes a power-law, $`\rho r^\beta `$, with $`\beta =62\alpha =9/4=2.25`$ , which corresponds to Bertschinger’s spherical infall solution. As $`\kappa `$ increases, the density profiles become increasingly curved, although they still approach the steep power-law divergent behaviour near the center (see, e.g., second curve from top in Figure 1b). For $`\kappa `$ greater than some ‘critical’ value, $`\kappa _{\mathrm{crit}}2.678`$, the density profiles become unphysical, vanishing at a finite radius near the center.

The “critical” density profile ($`\kappa =\kappa _{\mathrm{crit}}`$) corresponds to the maximum value of $`\kappa `$ consistent with a non-vanishing density profile at the center and, as shown in Figure 1b, describes the N-body results much better than a power law. Interestingly, over approximately three decades in radius, the shape of the NFW density profile is very similar to the ‘critical’ solution alluded to above.

The meaning of the critical solution may be understood by considering the phase-space density distribution corresponding to the different solutions. The phase-space density distribution function is broadest for the power-law solution ($`\kappa =\alpha =1.875`$) and gets increasingly narrower as $`\kappa `$ increases; the critical solution ($`\kappa =\kappa _{\mathrm{crit}}`$) corresponds then to the most sharply peaked phase-space density distribution compatible with a monotonic density profile. In other words, the critical solution may be interpreted as a “maximally mixed” configuration where the phase-space density is as uniform as possible across the system.

This leads to the following interpretation of the origin of the NFW profile. Gravitational assembly of CDM halos leads to a simple power-law radial stratification of the phase-space density. If spherical symmetry is imposed, as in the case treated by Bertschinger (1985), the collapse of each radial mass shell generates different “entropies” (phase-space densities) as they settle into virial equilibrium, leading to steeply cusped power-law profiles with slope $`\beta =62\alpha `$. On the other hand, when the assumption of spherical symmetry is released and the collapse proceeds through many stages of hierarchical merging, mass shells are continuously “mixed” and the profiles tend to the critical solution: that corresponding to the most uniform entropy distribution compatible with a monotonic (non-hollowed) density profile and with the power-law entropy stratification constraint.

## 4.  NFW vs ‘critical’ solution

As discussed above, the ‘critical’ density profile resembles the model proposed by NFW over a large dynamic range in radius. Despite this similarity, there are important differences between the two profiles, one of the most notable being that the critical solution tends to an asymptotic central slope of $`\beta =2\alpha /5=0.75`$ rather than to $`1`$ as in NFW’s fitting formula. A simple approximation to the radial dependence of the slope of the ‘critical’ density profile is given by

$$\beta =\frac{d\mathrm{ln}\rho }{d\mathrm{ln}r}=\frac{0.75+2.625x^{1/2}}{1+0.5x^{1/2}},$$
(2)
which is accurate to $`3\%`$ for $`x=r/r_0<4`$. Here $`r_0=(5/3)r_s`$ is the radius where the logarithmic slope of the density profile equals $`2.25`$. This should be compared with $`\beta =(1+3y)/(1+y)`$ for NFW, where $`y=r/r_s`$, or with the profile proposed by Moore et al (1998), $`\beta =1.5(1+2x^{3/2})/(1+x^{3/2})`$. The comparison is shown in Figure 2a. The critical profile (labeled ‘TN’ in this figure) is overall similar to NFW, although it becomes shallower inwards more gradually than NFW. For $`r<0.03r_s`$ the critical solution is shallower than NFW, and approaches slowly the asymptotic value of $`0.75`$.

These differences are reflected mainly in the inner regions, as illustrated in Figure 2b. Here the density profile corresponding to the three models are compared with the simulations222Model profiles in Figure 2b have been fitted only to the outer regions of the simulated halos in order to emphasize the differences between models. Quantitatively, results vary depending of the radial range chosen for the fit, but the trends described here remain.. The three models agree very well at radii exceeding $`r_s`$, but differ systematically within $`r_s`$. Although the critical solution predicts densities larger than NFW for r just inside $`r_s`$, the situation eventually reverses for radii smaller than $`0.01r_s`$, outside the range plotted in Figure 2b.

Interestingly, the profiles of simulated halos exhibit similar deviations from NFW fits over the same radial range: the three curves connecting solid circles, corresponding to the CDM halos alluded to in §3, show a clear excess over the NFW fit. Such excess has been noted by Moore et al (1998), Ghigna et al (2000), and Fukushige & Makino (1997, 2001), who interpret it as a signature of very steep ($`\beta 1.5`$) central divergent slopes. The modification to the NFW formula proposed by Moore et al (1998), where the innermost slope is $`1.5`$ rather than $`1`$, indeed appears to describe the simulation results better than the NFW formula in the $`0.15<r/r_s<0.5`$ range (see the top curve labeled ‘Moore et al’ in Figure 2a).

However, and in light of the discussion in §3, these systematic deviations from NFW fits do not necessarily signal the onset of a very steep central slope, but rather may reflect the more gradual radial dependence of the logarithmic slope of the critical solution (Figure 2a). This interpretation seems to find support in the simulations: the profiles of the three simulated halos are significantly shallower than the Moore et al fit near the center. One may want to dismiss this feature as an artifact of limited numerical resolution, but application of our convergence criteria (§2) to their own data suggest that the deviations are genuine and point to inner slopes significantly shallower than $`\beta =1.5`$, just as expected from TN’s critical solution.

Finally, Figure 3a compares the circular velocity profiles of the same CDM halos with the predictions of the three models considered in Figure 2. The cumulative mass profiles of TN’s critical solution and NFW are essentially indistinguishable; the different radial dependence of the density profile in the two models roughly compensate, and lead to almost identical circular velocity profiles that are in very good agreement with the results of the simulations. As expected from the discussion of Figure 2a, the Moore et al model significantly overestimates the dark mass near the center compared with the simulations.

This result is confirmed by a further simulation of a galaxy-sized $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$CDM halo, whose density profile is shown in Figure 3b. The profiles correspond to the halo analyzed by Power et al (2001) for the convergence tests described in §2. These tests vary the softening, timestep, and number of particles and show that extremely high numerical resolution is needed in order to discriminate between the three models. The highest resolution halo in Figure 3b (which has more than 3 million particles within $`r_{200}`$) has a circular velocity profile which agrees well with NFW (and TN’s critical solution) but is much shallower near the center than expected from Moore et al’s fitting formula.

Can these results be used to place meaningful constraints on the asymptotic inner slope? At $`r_{\mathrm{min}}1h^1`$ kpc, the smallest radius resolved in the highest-resolution run shown in Figure 3b, both the local and cumulative density profiles are robustly determined: $`\rho (r_{\mathrm{min}})/\rho _{\mathrm{crit}}=9.4\times 10^5`$, and $`\overline{\rho }(r_{\mathrm{min}})/\rho _{\mathrm{crit}}1.6\times 10^6`$. These values can be combined with the requirement of mass conservation to place an upper limit to the inner asymptotic slope of the density profile, $`\beta <3(1\rho (r_{\mathrm{min}})/\overline{\rho }(r_{\mathrm{min}}))=1.2`$. In other words, there is not enough mass within $`r_{\mathrm{min}}`$ to support a power-law density profile with slope steeper than $`\beta =1.2`$. We note that this conclusion depends sensitively on our ability to resolve the innermost $`1h^1`$ kpc. If $`r_{\mathrm{min}}`$ were just two or three times larger the same exercise would not be able to rule out slopes as steep as $`\beta =1.5`$.

## 5. Summary and Discussion

In summary, a number of interesting features emerge from the analysis of four very high-resolution (million-particle class) simulations of galaxy-sized CDM halos.

* The spherically-averaged, phase-space density profiles of CDM halos are very well approximated by a power law, $`\rho /\sigma ^3r^{1.875}`$. The slope of this power law is consistent with the self-similar solution for spherical secondary infall derived by Bertschinger (1985).
* The circular velocity profiles of simulated CDM halos agree well with the model proposed by NFW down to the smallest resolved scales.
* On the other hand, the shape of the density profiles of simulated CDM halos differs modestly, but significantly, from the model proposed by NFW. As a result, NFW fits tend to underestimate the density just inside the scale radius $`r_s`$, as pointed out by Moore et al (1998), Ghigna et al (2000), and Fukushige & Makino (1997, 2001).
* There is no obvious evidence for convergence to a steep asymptotic slope over the radial range probed by the simulations. Density profiles get increasingly shallow near the center, with innermost slopes significantly shallower than $`1.5`$.
* A maximally-mixed (‘critical’) model where the phase-space density profile is assumed to be a power law of radius accounts for these features and predicts that the slope of the density profile should gradually approach $`0.75`$ near the center.

The power-law behaviour of the phase-space density thus offers a natural way to gain insight into the structure of dark matter halos at radii where simulations become increasingly difficult and expensive, but also where observational constraints are strongest. Provided that the velocity dispersion tensor remains nearly isotropic, the “critical” solution provides a clear prediction as to the behaviour of the logarithmic slope of the density profile: it should become progressively shallower towards the center, converging to a value of $`\beta =0.75`$.

This is interesting, because slopes shallower than $`1.5`$ appear to be consistent with the recent reanalysis of the rotation curve dataset by van den Bosch et al. (2000) and by van den Bosch & Swaters (2001). It is important to mention, however, that a shallow central slope does not guarantee consistency with observations, which constrain the detailed radial dependence of the density profile slope as well. Our results do, however, offer a clear prediction to extrapolate the mass profiles to regions that are very difficult to probe numerically. Is the extrapolation of the power-law behaviour to very small radii warranted? This question ultimately will have to be answered by direct numerical simulation, although there is no obvious a priori reason why a power law scaling that is valid for over two decades in radii should break down nearer the center.

We note that these conclusions are at odds with the proposal of Moore et al (1998) and Ghigna et al. (2000) that the innermost slopes of CDM halos converge to a value not shallower than about $`1.5`$. However, it should be emphasized that their conclusion was based on the simulation of a single halo simulated in a standard CDM universe (SCDM) and on a significantly different mass regime (galaxy clusters) than probed here. Thus the possibility remains that this particular system may not be representative of the general population or that the density profiles of clusters are steeper than those of galaxy-sized halos. Confirming which of these possibilities holds will require a statistically significant sample of halos simulated with resolution comparable to the systems used here. Finally, it is also possible that the cluster simulated by Moore et al. (1998) and Ghigna et al. (2000) differs from the galaxy-sized halos we present here in other, more subtle ways. For example, it may be significantly more triaxial than the systems analyzed here, or perhaps its velocity dispersion tensor is very anisotropic, in conflict with the assumptions of this work. Again, a detailed reanalysis of the discrepant system, extended to a statistically meaningful sample, appears necessary in order to explain conclusively this discrepancy.

The good agreement between the ‘critical’ solution and the mass profiles of simulated halos suggests that the structure of CDM halos is determined by a radial stratification of phase-space density similar to that established through collapse onto a point mass perturbation in an unperturbed expanding universe, and by the uniformization of phase-space density that occurs presumably as a result of the many merger and satellite accretion events that characterize the assembly of a CDM halo. This identification leaves a couple of important questions unanswered: (i) why should the phase-space density be a power law of radius?, and (ii) why is the exponent the same as in Bertschinger’s self-similar solution?. Although we have no clear answer to these questions at this point, our results suggest that explaining the origin of the structural similarity of CDM halos pointed out by Navarro, Frenk & White may entail unraveling why the radial stratification of phase-space density in CDM halos is the same power-law generated by the simple spherical collapse model. Discovering a mechanism that achieves this may provide a simple explanation for the universal structure of cold dark matter halos.

### Acknowledgments.

I am grateful to my collaborators: Carlos Frenk, Adrian Jenkins, Chris Power, Tom Quinn, Volker Springel, Joachim Stadel, James Taylor, and Simon White, for allowing me to report our results here, and also to J.Makino, T.Fukushige and P.Hut for organizing a very enjoyable meeting. Cool talks, fresh sushi, cold Sapporo, great company: all seemed a perfect antidote for a hot July in Tokyo and Kyoto. Thanks as well to B.Moore, S.Ghigna, G.Lake, and F.Governato for sharing with me data from their ‘Local Group’ simulations. This work has been supported by various grants from NSERC and CFI.


format: text

text:
# The Static Potential to 𝑂(𝛼²) in Lattice Perturbation Theory

## 1 INTRODUCTION

The calculation of Wilson loops and derived quantities (such as the potential and static quark mass renormalisation) is perhaps one of the most mature problems in lattice perturbation theory, with many calculations throughout the last two decades.

Nevertheless, as the lattice community moves to non-perturbative simulations with (massive) improved dynamical quark actions it is necessary to extend the coverage of the literature correspondingly.

Further, while the calculation of the static potential has been well understood in the literature , and in particular for quenched SU(2) gauge theory , we present results for the static potential in $`SU(3)`$ both with and without dynamical fermions.

## 2 Perturbative Wilson Loops

The bare operator for the Wilson loop contains all orders in the coupling due to the exponentiation of the gauge field in a link. This operator must be expanded and truncated to $`O(\alpha ^2)`$.

$$W(𝒞)=𝒪_W$$
(1)
$$𝒪_W(𝒞)=\frac{1}{N}\mathrm{Tr}\underset{l𝒞}{}U_{\mu _l}(x_l)=\underset{l}{}e^{iagA_{\mu _l}^b(x_l)T^b}$$
(2)
To $`O(\alpha ^2)`$ there are non-trivial contributions from two, three and four insertions of the gluon field operator at all links in the perimeter of the loop.

We can derive both the static inter-quark potential and the static quark mass renormalisation from the Wilson loop,

$`V(\stackrel{}{R},am)`$ $`=`$ $`\underset{T\mathrm{}}{lim}{\displaystyle \frac{}{T}}\mathrm{log}W(\stackrel{}{R},T)`$
$`=`$ $`V_{\mathrm{phys}}(\stackrel{}{R},am)+V_{\mathrm{self}}(am)`$
$$V_{\mathrm{self}}=\underset{|\stackrel{}{R}|\mathrm{}}{lim}V(\stackrel{}{R})$$
(4)
The temporal component of the internal loop momentum was analytically integrated out to pick out the pole structure, and then the remaining integrals were performed in the infinite volume limit using VEGAS. In the case of the potential and the $`V_{\mathrm{self}}`$ the limits in coordinate space produce additional delta functions in momentum space which were integrated over analytically.

## 3 Small Wilson Loops

For pure gauge, we write the Wilson loop as,

$`W_{PG}`$ $`=`$ $`1g^2{\displaystyle \frac{N^21}{N}}W_T`$
$`g^4[(N^21)W_1+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{N^2}}W_2]`$
In the dynamical case we write,

$$\begin{array}{cc}W\hfill & =W_{PG}g^4n_f\frac{N^21}{N}\hfill \\ & \times \left[X_f^{(0)}+X_f^{(1)}c_{sw}+X_f^{(2)}c_{sw}^2\right]\hfill \end{array}$$
(6)
for Wilson type fermions and,

$$W=W_{PG}g^4\frac{N^21}{N}n_fX_f^{(KS)}$$
(7)
for Kogut-Susskind fermions.

We obtain new results for non-planar Wilson loops in the pure gauge case in Table 1, and for various dynamical fermion actions in Table 2. The results for planar small Wilson loops in pure gauge theory are well known.

The extraction of $`\alpha _s`$ with massive dynamical quarks in a “partially quenched” analysis, where the scale is set before extrapolation in the quark mass, is somewhat subtle since it depends on both the perturbative plaquette, and on the connection to $`\overline{MS}`$. In Figure 1 we show the mass dependence of the perturbative plaquette with the Wilson gauge action and both (improved) Wilson quark and Kogut-Susskind quark actions with massive dynamical quarks. This shows a smooth connection to the quenched case as the mass is increased across the threshold $`ma1`$. These results combined with the (lattice) mass dependent connection between the lattice and $`\overline{MS}`$ schemes discussed in  allow a calculation of $`\alpha _s(m_q,\mu )`$.

## 4 Potential

We define the lattice coordinate space potential coupling

$$\alpha _R(a\stackrel{}{R},am)=\frac{aR}{C_F}\left(V(a\stackrel{}{R},am)V_{\mathrm{self}}(am)\right)$$
(8)
$$\begin{array}{cc}V(a\stackrel{}{R},am)=& \alpha _LV_1(a\stackrel{}{R})+\alpha _L^2\\ \times & \left(V_2^{PG}(a\stackrel{}{R})+n_fV_2^F(a\stackrel{}{R},am)\right)\end{array}$$
(9)
$`\alpha _R(a\stackrel{}{R},am)`$ is constant up to discretisation errors at tree level. At one loop it runs logarithmically with $`R`$, with pure gauge and fermionic contributions. In pure gauge we can identify a lattice tadpole at one loop, shown in Figure 2, which is exactly proportional to the tree level contribution. The improvement of lattice potentials through the use of a “lattice-R” arises at this order through the obvious correlation of the one loop contribution with the tree level one.

Figure 3 shows some sample fermionic contributions to the coordinate space potential for each of the quark actions studied both in the massless limit and with a non-zero quark mass. The smooth curves are continuum predictions, with the known conversion from $`\overline{MS}`$ used in the massless case. In the massive case we obtain the conversion from $`\overline{MS}`$ to this scheme from a fit to the data . The R-scheme is a physical one and the decoupling of the quarks from the running at $`aR(am)^1`$ can be seen.

We find that the BLM $`q^{}`$ for the potential *including* the self energy term is well described by

$$aq^{}(aR)=1.701+\frac{1.1479}{aR}+\frac{0.20333\mathrm{log}aR}{aR}$$
(10)
If we seek to predict the short distance potential we should look either at the force or a difference in potentials such that the the unphysical and ultraviolet self energy terms cancel. The constant term in the above $`q^{}`$ cancels and the scale runs rapidly with $`R`$. In such combinations the perturbation theory performs remarkably well compared to non-perturbative data for the short and intermediate distance potential . Also, this work obtains an understanding of discretisation effects on the short distance potential. This is essential in order to discern dynamical quark effects on the short distance potential.

## ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

P.B. is supported by PPARC grant PPA/J/S/1998/00756. G.B. is a Heisenberg Fellow (DFG grant Ba 1564/4-1). This work is supported by PPARC grant PPA/G/O/1998/00559 and by the EU networks HPRN-CT-2000-00145 and FMRX-CT97-0122.


text:
# Dubious Deductions from AGN Survey Data

## 1. Levels of polarization of the nuclear light in Seyfert 2 galaxies

Koski (1978) showed that Seyfert 2s and Narrow Line Radio Galaxies generally have UV excesses relative to the SEDs for the Pop II stars which dominate the optical light in arcsec apertures. He showed the spectra could be parameterized approximately by a normal Pop II SED, plus a suitably normalized power law which dominates in the near-UV. The brightest powerful Seyfert 2 nucleus, that of NGC1068, can indeed be fit quite well that way (Miller and Antonucci 1983, McLean et al 1983, Antonucci et al. 1994), and furthermore the power-law component has a wavelength-independent polarization of $`16`$% in arcsec apertures. It is crucial to note that the broad permitted lines show the same percent P as the power-law continuum component accounting for the “UV excess.” This strongly suggests that the scattering paths of the broad lines and the power law are very similar geometrically. Finally, the permitted lines have normal equivalent width in polarized flux. This confirms that the hidden source is simply a normal Seyfert 1 nucleus, whose light is scattered into the line of sight.

The polarization angles of NGC1068 and other Seyfert 2s lie perpendicular to the radio axes, so that the photons’ last flights before scattering into the line of sight were along the axes. Thus the equatorial directions must be opaque, and the torus model was born. In principle the polar scattering could result from intrinsically anisotropic emission, but the anisotropy would need to be the same for the broad emission lines as for the power law, which would be difficult to arrange by some mechanism other than shadowing. In fact if these two components differ substantially in their isotropy in any significant number of objects, we’d expect to see one component without much of the other fairly frequently in Type 1 objects. The broad line equivalent width dispersion would then be very large and this is not seen.

It was evident from the beginning of the era of high SNR spectropolarimetry that most other objects behave somewhat differently (Antonucci 1984 and Tran et al. 1995 on 3C234; Miller and Goodrich 1990; Tran 1995). It’s quite general that the broad line equivalent widths are normal in the polarized flux spectra of narrow line objects, that is, they match those of broad line objects. Thus the basic picture is the same as for NGC1068: a normal broad line nucleus is seen in reflection. But in general the UV “featureless continuum” has a polarization much lower than that of the broad emission lines (Kay 1994). Thus there is another, unpolarized UV continuum component, now know to derive from hot stars in many cases (Heckman et al. 1995, Gonzalez-Delgado et al. 1998). But the key from the unified model point of view is that the broad lines are highly polarized (at 16%, NGC1068 has about the lowest P), so that the scattering is in one or two polar cones.

The point here is that several authors have taken the percent P from the UV continuum—which is often low—and rejected polar scattering on that basis. For example, see the key role of this erroneous argument in the discussion of Malkan et al. 1998.111The way to measure the broad line polarization, and hence the polarization of the scattered light alone, is to divide the polarized flux by the total flux. However, it is generally impossible to see the line clearly in total flux, so one just derives high lower limits to the broad line polarization in most cases. Tran (1995) claimed to measure the broad lines in total flux in some objects. However, M. Kishimoto and I looked carefully at the case of Mrk477, in preparing a paper on polarization imaging. We examined the total-flux plots, overlaying the permitted Ba lines on various forbidden lines; we saw little or no evidence for broad wings in the total flux. We thus placed an upper limit on the total flux of the broad components, leading to a conservative lower limit on broad H-$`\alpha `$ and H-$`\beta `$ polarization of 10%. Thus we disagree with the intrinsic value of only 2–3% quoted in Tran 1995. We used the same data.

## 2. Polarized broad H-$`\alpha `$ and the generality of Seyfert unification

Since the early days of the geometrical unified models of various kinds, attempts have been made to assess the generality of the models. For example, Tran (2001) has recently discussed whether or not all Seyfert 2s have hidden Type 1 nuclei of any significant luminosity. It’s usually difficult to prove that something is not present, and people haven’t yet converged on the answer to this.222One way to do it is to see whether there’s any significant “waste heat”—dust reradiation from the matter obscuring the putative hidden nucleus. D. Whysong and I are studying 3C radio galaxies in the mid-IR with this in mind, and have shown, for example, that M87 can have no such hidden nucleus at any remotely relevant luminosity level: astro-ph 0106381. Also, Meisenheimer et al. (2001) present a very good study of ISO data, and reach a similar conclusion that many lower-luminosity radio galaxies lack significant waste heat.

Tran (2001) has given a variety of arguments and concludes that there are in fact many “real” Seyfert 2 galaxies without hidden Type 1 nuclei. His paper may be correct but I want to take this opportunity to review some places where his arguments seem quite uncertain—most of these are already discussed in his paper.

Tran (2001) presents spectropolarimetric data on two Seyfert 2 samples: the $`12\mu `$-selected sample of Rush et al. 1993, and the CfA sample of Huchra and Burg 1992. The main finding seems to be that those with detected hidden broad emission line regions (“HBLRs”) have higher radio power relative to the far-IR power than the non-HBLRs on average, and that they also have warmer $`25\mu `$$`60\mu `$ colors on average. These differences are taken to show that the two types (HBLRs vs. non-HBLRs333Note that “non-HBLR” in Seyfert 2s means there is no BLR present at all, since the Seyfert 2 classification precludes a visible BLR.) of Seyfert 2 are intrinsically different, and that in particular there is a large subset with no hidden Type 1 nucleus.

I’ve often preached about the great improvement in interpretability of tests of this type when the samples are selected by a property which is thought to be fairly isotropic, such as far-IR, and H. Schmitt explores this in detail in his article in this volume. (See also Schmitt et al. 2001.) That’s certainly not the case with the $`12\mu `$ sample, since the very high column densities of the tori result in substantial optical depths at that wavelength, though this sample is much better in this regard than those based on say, UV excess. Aside from all theoretical considerations, and aside from reference to the X-ray columns, it seems obvious that the $`12\mu `$ emission is quite anisotropic simply because the HBLR Seyfert 2s have much steeper mid-IR spectra than bare Type 1 nuclei (see e.g., Edelson & Malkan 1986). This wouldn’t be the case if the mid-IR were emitted isotropically. The X-ray columns reinforce this: they are much larger in the Type 2s of all kinds, than in the Type 1s, and this huge extra column density is probably dusty molecular gas. That last point is confirmed semi-quantitatively at least from molecular line maps.444The X-ray columns in Type 1 nuclei, while much smaller in general, are still usually larger than those expected from the optical reddening/extinction estimates, for Galactic dust size distributions and dust/gas ratios (Maiolino et al. 2001 and references therein). It’s possible that this gas contains only large grains, or perhaps is dust-free, but it’s quite a different issue from the enormous excess columns of Type 2s relative to Type 1s. See for example Planesas et al. 1991. Thus I can’t agree with the characterization of the $`12\mu `$ sample as complete and unbiased with respect to orientation.

For a few important related fine points of Tran’s paper, he asserts that the contradictory conclusions of Heisler et al. 1997 may be due to sample “incompleteness” of the latter. As discussed below and in Schmitt’s contribution to these proceedings, I believe the selection of the latter is in fact better, based largely on the far-IR which is thought to be relatively isotropic. The Heisler paper was recently updated as Lumsden et al. 2001, and the interpretation given there is more consistent with Tran’s interpretation.

Other caveats about Tran’s paper:

1) The polarimetry data come from Lick, Palomar and Keck Observatories. No indications are made that the observations are of uniform depth, and no upper limits are given for broad H-alpha for the putative non-HBLRs. It would not be simple to rectify this situation. However, I already see from a footnote to Moran et al. 2001 that two of Tran’s “non-HBLR” objects do show the broad H-$`\alpha `$ in polarized flux with better data.

2) The warm mid-IR average colors of the HBLR objects have been discussed before (e.g. Heisler et al. 1997, Lumsden et al. 2001; Alexander 2001, and references therein; see also Miller and Goodrich 1990), with arguments as to whether the warmer colors might derive from lower inclinations as expected for tori theoretically. That could explain the lack of polarized broad H$`\alpha `$ if the objects with the highest inclinations have partially obscured scattering regions. There is also evidence given in these papers that at least part of the effect (the correlation between detectability of a scattered BLR and mid-IR “warmth”) is a contrast issue related to the relative dominance of the AGN in a particular object, and this seems natural and unavoidable too.

Tran argues (following Alexander 2001) that the cooler mid-IR spectra of the non-HBLRs cannot be due to higher extinction to the warm regions (and thus presumably to torus inclination) because the X-ray columns for the samples under consideration are statistically indistinguishable. To me that’s suggestive at best because of the sample mismatches, and more importantly, because it’s a purely qualitative argument. No theory predicts the magnitude of the expected difference between the columns of the HBLRs and non-HBLRs if the difference is due to inclination. One would need to have such a robust prediction to compare with any observational upper limit on the statistical column density difference, in order to prove a discrepancy.

3) A point that I find at least strongly suggestive (given the problematic selection criteria), is that the HBLR Seyfert 2s have a larger ratio of radio/far-IR than the others.555The paper also cites Moran et al. 1992 as providing evidence for intrinsically greater absolute radio luminosities in HBLR Seyfert 2s; that result was subject to severe selection effects, and was essentially retracted in Moran et al. 2000. Certainly given the anisotropic selection criteria for the Tran objects, I’d hesitate to make much of the radio power difference in the Tran paper. This seems to be a modest effect though (see Tran’s Fig. 1; no statistical significance is given in the paper, but a significance of 0.8% is given by a K-S test: H.T., pc). If it is accepted to be statistically significant for the two populations, a next step would be to examine whether free-free absorption in the radio would be significant for the objects of highest inclination. Many recent papers on Seyfert radio properties have concluded free-free optical depths can be substantial in the cm region (e.g., Gallimore et al. 1997, Ulvestad 1999, and several others). Also a starburst component might have a different radio/far-IR ratio. But a different starburst contribution doesn’t constitute strong evidence against a hidden BLR.

Tran and also Thean et al. 2001 find that the absolute radio luminosities of the HBLR Seyfert 2s are significantly greater than those of the non-HLBRs for the 12$`\mu `$ sample. However, with imperfect selection criteria, I’m more comfortable with comparing ratios of nearly isotropic properties such as discussed in the previous paragraph.

Also a general caveat should be kept in mind. The fact that a statistical difference in the populations of the putative types of 2 may exist is only suggestive of a qualitative difference in the physics. If all have hidden BLRs, the two types would necessarily differ in average torus covering factor, so needn’t be identical in other intrinsic properties.

4) The point is made that the \[OIII\] 5007/ H-$`\beta `$ ratio median is $`9.9\pm 1.3`$ for the HBLR nuclei but only $`6.8\pm 1.5`$ for the non-HBLRs. This brings up the vexing question of definitions for Seyfert 2. Well known examples of bright Seyfert 2s have ratios near 10. Half of the “non-HBLR Seyfert 2s” as used in the paper have ratios less that 6.8. The ratios aren’t tabulated in the paper, but I’d interpret this as meaning that many so-called non-HBLRs are composites, with important Liner or starburst contributions to many of them. Certainly these components will reduce the integrated dust temperatures in the sense observed. But again that doesn’t constitute evidence against a hidden BLR commensurate with the amount of high-ionization narrow line gas present.

5) Tran asserts that the non-HBLR Seyfert 2s simply have no hidden BLR. But the BLR is always accompanied by a “power-law” continuum, and this continuum is the only viable explanation for some of the narrow line ratios. Thus the question arises: how are the non-HBLR narrow line regions ionized? He speculates that the latter are “dominated by other nuclear and circumnuclear processes such as starbursts.” This seems consistent with the statement that they have lower excitation, but also seems to reduce the question to semantics. No one doubts that there are objects dominated by e.g. starbursts, which thus have different narrow line ratios than Seyferts…it’s just that the starbursts are relatively more important in some objects than in others, and the excitation is a measure of that. Again I don’t see any implication that there’s no hidden BLR commensurate with the requirements for narrow line ionization level in a particular object.666Nuclear activity seems manifest mainly as the Big Blue Bump and the resulting broad and narrow emission lines in radio quiet AGN. There is no question that some radio galaxies lack significant visible or hidden BBBs, based on the mid-IR argument mentioned in Footnote 2, but they are still AGN because of the radio activity. But what AGN activity exists in a non-HBLR non-radio-loud Seyfert 2? In finance, the analogy would be a bond which is a “zero coupon perpetuity,” which makes no interest payments, and never pays back the principle. At that point it’s not much of a bond, and a non-HBLR Seyfert 2 might be similarly ill-defined.

6) The paper of Pappa et al. (2001) is cited as showing the existence of low intrinsic X-ray absorption in two Seyfert 2s of very low luminosity. Many Seyfert 2’s are Compton thick and thus show no absorption turnover at low X-ray energies, but for these two, other arguments are given that suggest that this isn’t likely. As Pappa et al. point out, the lack of an observed BLR could be intrinsic, or else it could be due to a dusty warm absorber as documented in several more luminous objects. I’m not aware that either of these two, NGC3147 or NGC 4698, has been checked for broad polarized H-$`\alpha `$, but that would certainly be worth while.

My personal conclusion from all this is that the existence of objects without the Big Blue Bump and accompanying broad emission lines—commensurate with the luminosity of highly excited narrow line gas—has not been shown robustly. This is actually pretty similar to Tran’s conclusion that “it is the strength of the AGN engine that seems to be the dominant factor in determining the visibility of the HBLR.” Undoubtedly if the nuclear continuum and BLR strength can be turned down in a particular object, everything else being the same, the scattered light signal would be harder to see. The question is, does anything happen qualitatively at low AGN luminosities? Do these components decrease faster than say the strength of the high-excitation narrow line gas? It seems to me we’re as far as ever from answering that question.

## 3. Testing the generality of Seyfert unification with isotropic properties

It would be great to have a dollar for every paper that concluded that Seyfert 1s and 2s are intrinsically different by showing that samples differ in some way, without selecting the sample by an isotropic property. No unified model says that any old batch of objects of one type is equivalent to any old batch of objects of another type. As an extreme example, with UV selection, an object whose UV excess is just scattered light must be much more powerful intrinsically than one whose UV excess is seen directly. For objects like NGC1068, only a percent or so of the nuclear UV is scattered into the line of sight, so Seyfert 2s found in this way come from five magnitudes higher on the luminosity function than Seyfert 1s found this way. No wonder they have more CO, L(far-IR), radio emission, etc, etc! I’ll just mention one recent example. The Malkan et al 1998 paper, based on the Seyferts in the HST archives, concludes that Seyfert 2s are more likely to have nuclear dust structures. According to the verbal contribution of Maiolino et al. to the Gullermo Haro Workshop held at UNAM in 2000, and in a pc, this effect disappears if the Seyfert types are matched for \[OIII\] luminosity. (Other demurs regarding Malkan et al. 1998 can be found in Antonucci 1999a.)

A must-read paper in this context is Keel et al. 1994, which analyzes properties of Seyferts selected by $`60\mu `$ flux and $`25\mu `$$`60\mu `$ color. That sample should be pretty good—maybe the best that is available right now. Several old saws about Seyfert 2s having greater narrow line luminosities, ratios of narrow line luminosities to radio, etc, are disproven there. Not everything in Keel et al. can be easily explained by orientation though!

H. Schmitt is leading a major program of study of the sample from the Keel et al. paper, and he gives a report in these proceedings. (See also Schmitt et al. 2001.) He shows that several claimed differences between Seyfert 1s and 2s go away with this type of selection. To make the sample even better, we hope to add in the Seyferts dropped from the Keel et al list because of the $`25\mu `$$`60\mu `$ color criterion. The result should be quite good.

There is a crucial limitation of this type of test, however. As emphasized in the past by e.g., A. Lawrence, there must be a range of covering factors for the dusty tori, and so those classified as Type 2 must have higher average covering factors. Therefore as populations, the 1s and 2s must be intrinsically different in their statistical properties at some level. This has no direct implication that some objects lack hidden BLRs!

To reiterate, even a perfect study, using isotropic selection and real upper limits, is expected to show differences between 1s and 2s in their intrinsic statistical properties. One could only confidently expect broad overlap in the properties of the 1s vs. the 2s even if every 2 has a hidden Type 1 nucleus. Such a difference would by itself have no direct implication that some of the Type 2s lack a BLR.

## 4. Testing the beam model for radio galaxies and quasars with isotropic properties

This is an old issue, pretty much settled long ago I think. It still carries a good lesson, very closely analogous to that of the previous section. Blandford and Rees (1978) and Blandford and Konigl (1979) proposed that superluminal radio sources were simply normal double sources seen from very low inclinations, i.e., seen from along the axes of the radio jets. Early tests of the idea using the associated radio projected linear sizes (Browne777Browne was, however, an early advocate for matching diffuse radio power. et al. 1982) and the narrow emission lines (Heckman 1983) found major discrepancies with it. However the double-lobed objects used in the comparison samples to the superluminals came from orders of magnitude higher on the luminosity function, because they satisfied survey flux limits with their nearly isotropic diffuse radio emission, whereas the superluminals satisfied survey flux limits because of their beamed core emission. It was exactly like the Seyfert 1/2 sample problems referred to in the last section. This was discussed in detail in Antonucci and Ulvestad 1985.

## 5. Testing the energy sources for ultraluminous infrared galaxies with mid-IR spectroscopy

As for the previous section, I’ll give just a brief sketch of this important issue, with a reference to a recent fuller discussion: Antonucci 2001.

The issue is the energy sources in Ultraluminous Infrared Galaxies, and whether recent ISO mid-IR spectral surveys provide breakthroughs in this area.

A large subset of the Ulirgs have properties exactly as expected for ultraluminous “Quasar 2s,” that is to say powerful high-ionization narrow line emission, powerful mid-far infrared emission, no optical point sources, but instead diffuse “mirror” regions revealing light from a hidden quasar. Note that the optical continuum is not expected to scale with nuclear luminosity because in low luminosity Seyfert 2s, it’s almost always dominated by the underlying old stellar population.

The narrow emission lines have much lower equivalents widths in quasars than in Seyfert 1s, so their luminosity doesn’t scale proportionately to the nuclear optical/UV either (e.g., Boroson & Green 1992, and Wills et al. 1993). It’s a big effect.

As with nearby Seyfert 2s, it’s difficult to be very precise about any starburst contribution to Ulirg energetics, but some well-studied cases reveal that it is often substantial. However, it is almost universally true that the objects characterized by Seyfert-2 like narrow line ratios in the optical show the same type of emission line spectrum in the mid-IR. Thus, the latter spectral region just reveals the same emission component as the optical for this group of Ulirgs.

At lower luminosities especially, many Ulirgs have starburst optical spectra, and also starburst mid-IR spectra. Again the mid-IR observations reveal just the same emission region as the optical, at least in a qualitative sense.

Where the mid-IR data show something new is among the many Ulirgs with LINER optical spectra: in almost all of these cases the mid-IR spectra show lines from HII regions (e.g., Lutz et al. 1999)! This is interpreted most simply (and in the published papers, essentially solely) as proving that the true nuclei, and by implication the dominant energy sources, are compact starbursts. However, in general the star formation uncovered this way cannot be shown to dominate (or otherwise) the galaxy energetics because there is no accurate conversion from any particular starburst spectral feature to the bolometric luminosity of the associated starburst population.

Thus the ISO data show the presence of substantial but poorly determined starburst luminosity somewhere in the galaxies, generally at the obscuration depth penetrated by light of these wavelengths. Unfortunately, obscured AGN are known to possess column densities of $`>10^{24}`$ cm -2 in most cases, where $`A(V)>1000`$ and the mid-IR from the nucleus is quite obscured. There is a moderate range of parameter space such that the mid-IR can’t penetrate the gas/dust columns, but the hard X-rays can. Above $`>10^{25}`$ cm -2 or so however, the dusty gas becomes “Compton thick” and even the hard X-rays are blocked.

The point is that recently many Ulirgs classified as LINERS in the optical and starbursts in the mid-IR have since revealed powerful $`10`$keV X-ray sources, often with luminosities suggestive of hidden AGN which are capable of providing the entire observed bolometric power. In other LINER Ulirgs a hidden powerful AGN is revealed by spectropolarimetry, though with that technique we have no good way of estimating the contribution of the AGN to the bolometric luminosity. These cases show that published conclusions that $`>50`$% of the energy in a Ulirg derives from a hidden starburst are invalid. The same applies to the Scuba sources, which were placed directly on the “Madau” diagram of stellar luminosity density evolution, without the slightest evidence that they’re powered by stars!

The details and references are given in the review article cited at the top of this section (as well as in papers by experts such as Sanders and Mirabel, and Veilleux and several others). I just mention two cases here because they are really amusing to me. The well-studied Ulirg NGC6240 is a LINER in the optical, but a starburst in the mid-IR. In fact it’s a “template” starburst in the mid-IR according to Genzel et al. 1998. The Genzel team claims to have shown that this and many other examples are starburst- dominated on this basis. Only trouble is, NGC6240 and many others have powerful AGN X-ray sources coming directly through the obscuring matter at 10keV (Vignati et al. 1999).

I don’t know of any starburst spectral feature that can be accurately used to determine the starburst bolometric luminosity, so the starburst features can only say that there is such a component, and put a relatively low minimum value on its luminosity. The situation is a little better for AGN in that the X-ray luminosity is empirically a pretty good ($``$ factor of 3?) estimator of the bolometric value, based on the unobscured cases. Vignati et al. (1999) point out that that relation indicates that the bolometric luminosity of the hidden AGN in NGC6240 is consistent with the entire observed bolometric luminosity. Conservatively, I conclude from that that the AGN makes a significant contribution, though it’s not certain that it’s $`>50`$%.

The situation for NGC4945 is similar. Spoon et al. (2000) have analyzed the mid-IR spectrum finding that the starburst “may well power the entire bolometric luminosity, …\[but\] are also consistent with an up to 50% contribution from an embedded AGN.” Immediately afterward, Madejski et al. (2000) published a spectacular wide-band SED showing the few times $`10^{24}`$ X-ray column, and deriving the unabsorbed nuclear X-ray luminosity alone at $`10^{43}`$ erg/s, a substantial fraction of that in the mid-far-IR, and indicative of a bolometric luminosity consistent with that observed. It is very important to note that there are no indications of activity in NGC4945 other than the hard X-ray source. This means that active galaxies can look perfectly normal at other wavelengths! They do not need to show even the liner-like emission lines!

## Acknowledgements

For comments on an earlier draft I thank L. Kay, T. Heckman, B. Wills, M. Kishimoto, H. Schmitt, J. Ulvestad, and R. Barvainis. Detailed comments from B. Wills led to many changes. Support came from NSF grants NSF AST96-17160 and NSF AST00-98719.

## References

Alexander, D. M. 2001, MNRAS, 320, L15

Antonucci, R. R. J. 1984, ApJ, 278, 499

Antonucci, R. R. J. & Ulvestad 1985, ApJ, 294, 158A

Antonucci, R., Hurt, T., & Miller, J. 1994, ApJ, 430, 210

Antonucci, R. 1999, ASP Conf. Ser. 161: High Energy Processes in Accreting Black Holes, 193 -also known as astro-ph/9810067

Antonucci, R 2001 - astro-ph /0103048 - to be pub in AGN Surveys, Proceedings of IAU Colloquium 184. Edited by R.F. Green, E.Ye. Khachikian, and D.B. Sanders. Publisher: ASP, Dates: June 18-22, 2001, Location: Byurakan, Armenia

Blandford, R. D. & Rees, M. J. 1978, Pittsburgh Conference on BL Lac Objects, Pittsburgh, Pa., April 24-26, 1978, Proceedings. (A79-30026 11-90) Pittsburgh, Pa., University of Pittsburgh, 1978, p. 328-341

Blandford, R. D. & Konigl, A. 1979, ApJ, 232, 34

Boroson, T. A. & Green, R. F. 1992, ApJS, 80, 109

Browne, I. W. A., Clark, R. R., Moore, P. K., Muxlow, T. W. B., Wilkinson, P. N., Cohen, M. H., & Porcas, R. W. 1982, Nature, 299, 788

Edelson, R. A. & Malkan, M. A. 1986, ApJ, 308, 59

Gallimore, J. F., Baum, S. A., & O’Dea, C. P. 1997, Nature, 388, 852

Genzel, R. et al. 1998, ApJ, 498, 579

González Delgado, R. M., Heckman, T., Leitherer, C., Meurer, G., Krolik, J., Wilson, A. S., Kinney, A., & Koratkar, A. 1998, ApJ, 505, 174

Heckman, T. M. 1983, ApJ, 271, L5

Heckman, T. et al. 1995, ApJ, 452, 549

Heisler, C. A., Lumsden, S. L., & Bailey, J. A. 1997, Nature, 385, 700

Huchra, J. & Burg, R. 1992, ApJ, 393, 90

Kay, L. E. 1994, ApJ, 430, 196

Keel, W. C., de Grijp, M. H. K., Miley, G. K., & Zheng, W. 1994, A&A, 283, 791

Koski, A. T. 1978, ApJ, 223, 56

S.L. Lumsden (1,2), C.A. Heisler (3), J.A. Bailey (2), J.H. Hough (4), S. Young, MNRAS, in press. Also known as astro-ph/0106263.

Lutz, D., Veilleux, S., & Genzel, R. 1999, ApJ, 517, L13

Maiolino, R., Marconi, A., & Oliva, E. 2001, A&A, 365, 37

Malkan, M. A., Gorjian, V., & Tam, R. 1998, ApJS, 117, 25

McLean, I. S., Aspin, C., Heathcote, S. R., & McCaughrean, M. J. 1983, Nature, 304, 609

Meisenheimer, K., Haas, M., Müller, S. A. H., Chini, R., Klaas, U., & Lemke, D. 2001, A&A, 372, 719

Miller, J. S. & Antonucci, R. R. J. 1983, ApJ, 271, L7

Miller, J. S. & Goodrich, R. W. 1990, ApJ, 355, 456

Moran, E. C., Halpern, J. P., Bothun, G. D., & Becker, R. H. 1992, AJ, 104, 990

Moran, E. C., Barth, A. J., Kay, L. E., & Filippenko, A. V. 2000, ApJ, 540, L73

Moran, E. C., Kay, L. E., Davis, M., Filippenko, A. V., & Barth, A. J. 2001, ApJ, 556, L75

Pappa, A., Georgantopoulos, I. Stewart, G.C., Zezas, A.L. astro-ph/0104061, to be published in MNRAS

Planesas, P., Scoville, N., & Myers, S. T. 1991, ApJ, 369, 364

Rush, B., Malkan, M. A., & Spinoglio, L. 1993, ApJS, 89, 1

Schmitt, H. R., Antonucci, R. R. J., Ulvestad, J. S., Kinney, A. L., Clarke, C. J., & Pringle, J. E. 2001, ApJ, 555, 663

Spoon, H. W. W., Koornneef, J., Moorwood, A. F. M., Lutz, D., & Tielens, A. G. G. M. 2000, A&A, 357, 898

Tran, H. D. 1995, ApJ, 440, 578

Tran, H. D. 2001, ApJ, 554, L19

Ulvestad, J. S., Wrobel, J. M., Roy, A. L., Wilson, A. S., Falcke, H., & Krichbaum, T. P. 1999, ApJ, 517, L81

Vignati, P. et al. 1999, A&A, 349, L57


text:
# Degenerate BESS model at future colliders

## I Introduction

Alternative realizations of the electroweak symmetry breaking can be formulated by means of effective lagrangians which are built on the basis of the known symmetry properties and which can a priori contain no resonance or new resonances like scalar and vector particles. The good SM fit to the electroweak precision data does not necessarily exclude possible extensions along this direction which in general assume a large Higgs mass. One can compensate the effect of the large Higgs mass by some new high order operator or some new particle vari . A recent critical review of this option can be found in pesk . These new operators or the presence of new particles can give a signature at new accelerators like LHC and future linear colliders. For instance the parameters $`\alpha _4`$ and $`\alpha _5`$ appearing in the effective lagrangian to order $`p^4`$ can be detected by studying $`WW`$ scattering at future colliders with the sensitivity shown in chierici ; the possibility of detecting new vectors from strong $`WW`$ interaction at CLIC albert  and at VLHC tao  has been also recently investigated. I will present here a brief overview of the phenomenology of new vector resonances from the degenerate BESS model.

## II The degenerate BESS model

The degenerate BESS model (D-BESS) dbess  is a realization of dynamical electroweak symmetry breaking which predicts the existence of two new triplets of gauge bosons almost degenerate in mass ($`L^\pm `$, $`L_3`$), ($`R^\pm `$, $`R_3`$). The extra parameters are a new gauge coupling constant $`g^{\prime \prime }`$ and a mass parameter $`M`$, related to the scale of the underlying symmetry breaking sector. In the charged sector the $`R^\pm `$ fields are unmixed and $`M_{R^\pm }=M`$, while $`M_{L^\pm }M(1+x^2)`$ where $`x=g/g^{\prime \prime }`$ with $`g`$ the usual $`SU(2)_W`$ gauge coupling constant. The $`L_3`$, $`R_3`$ masses are given by $`M_{L_3}M\left(1+x^2\right),M_{R_3}M\left(1+x^2\mathrm{tan}^2\theta \right)`$ where $`\mathrm{tan}\theta =s_\theta /c_\theta =g^{}/g`$ and $`g^{}`$ is the usual $`U(1)_Y`$ gauge coupling constant. These resonances are narrow and almost degenerate in mass with $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{L_3}/M0.068x^2`$ and $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{R_3}/M0.01x^2`$, while the neutral mass splitting is: $`\mathrm{\Delta }M/M=(M_{L_3}M_{R_3})/M\left(1\mathrm{tan}^2\theta \right)x^20.70x^2`$. This model respects the existing stringent bounds from electroweak precision data since the $`S,T,U`$ (or $`ϵ_1,ϵ_2,ϵ_3`$) parameters vanish at the leading order due to an additional custodial symmetry. Therefore the precision electroweak data only set loose bounds on the parameter space of the model.

Future hadron colliders may be able to discover these new resonances by their production through quark annihilation and decay in the lepton channel: $`q\overline{q}^{}L^\pm ,W^\pm (e\nu _e)\mu \nu _\mu `$ and $`q\overline{q}L_3,R_3,Z,\gamma (e^+e^{})\mu ^+\mu ^{}`$. The relevant observables are the di-lepton transverse and invariant masses. The main backgrounds, left to these channels after the lepton isolation cuts, are the Drell-Yan processes with SM gauge bosons exchange in the electron and muon channel. A study has been performed using Pythia and CMSJET, which performs a simulation of the energy smearing of CMS detector,redi . Results are given in Table 1 for the sum of the electron and muon channels for $`L=100`$ fb-1. For the case $`M=`$3 TeV the results are given for an integrated luminosity of 500 fb-1.

The discovery limit at LHC with $`L=100`$ fb-1 is $`M2`$ TeV with $`g/g^{\prime \prime }=0.1`$. Beyond discovery, the possibility to disentangle the double peak structure depends strongly on $`g/g^{\prime \prime }`$ and smoothly on the mass redi . A lower energy LC can also probe this multi-TeV region through the virtual effects in the cross-sections for $`e^+e^{}L_3,R_3,Z,\gamma f\overline{f}`$. Due to the presence of new spin-one resonances the annihilation channel in $`f\overline{f}`$ and $`W^+W^{}`$ is more efficient than the fusion channel. In the case of D-BESS, the $`L_3`$ and $`R_3`$ states are not strongly coupled to $`WW`$ making the $`f\overline{f}`$ final states the most favourite channel for discovery. The analysis at $`\sqrt{s}=`$ 500 GeV and $`\sqrt{s}=`$ 800 GeV is based on the following observables: $`\sigma ^\mu ,\sigma ^h`$, $`A_{FB}^{e^+e^{}\mu ^+\mu ^{}}`$, $`A_{FB}^{e^+e^{}\overline{b}b}`$, $`A_{LR}^{e^+e^{}\mu ^+\mu ^{}}`$, $`A_{LR}^{e^+e^{}\overline{b}b}`$, $`A_{LR}^{e^+e^{}had}`$. For $`\sigma ^h`$ and $`\sigma ^\mu `$ a systematic uncertainty of $`2\%`$ and 1.3$`\%`$ has been also assumed. The sensitivity contours obtained for $`L=`$ 1000 fb-1 and $`P(e^{})=80\%`$ are shown in Figure 1. The allowed regions are below the curves.

The LC indirect reach for $`\sqrt{s}<`$M is lower or comparable to that of the LHC. However, the QCD background rejection essential for the LHC sensitivity still needs to be validated using full detector simulation and pile-up effects.

Assuming a resonant signal to be seen at the LHC or at a lower LC, the multi-TeV collider can measure its width, mass and investigate the existence of an almost degenerate structure jhep . This preliminary study has been recently validated by taking full account for the luminosity spectrum and accelerator induced backgroundsflab . The ability in identifying the model distinctive features has been studied using the CLIC production cross section and the flavour dependent forward-backward asymmetries, for different values of $`g/g^{\prime \prime }`$. The CLIC luminosity spectrum has been obtained with a dedicated beam simulation program for the nominal parameters at $`\sqrt{s}`$ = 3 TeV. In order to study the systematics from the knowledge of this spectrum, the modified Yokoya-Chen parameterization has been adopted. The beam energy spectrum is described in terms of $`N_\gamma `$, the number of photons radiated per $`e^\pm `$ in the bunch, the beam energy spread in the linac $`\sigma _p`$ and the fraction $``$ of events outside the 5% of the centre-of-mass energy. The resulting distributions for $`M`$ = 3 TeV and $`g/g^{\prime \prime }=0.15`$ are shown in Figure 2 for the case of the CLIC.02 beam parameters ($`L`$=0.40$`\times 10^{35}`$ cm-2 s-1 and $`N_\gamma `$=1.2).

This study has demonstrated that with 1000 fb-1 of data, CLIC will be able to resolve the two narrow resonances for values of the coupling ratio $`g/g^{\prime \prime }>`$ 0.08, corresponding to a mass splitting $`\mathrm{\Delta }M`$ = 13 GeV for $`M=`$ 3 TeV, and to determine $`\mathrm{\Delta }M`$ with a statistical accuracy better than 100 MeV (see Table 1).

The profile of new resonances can be studied with high accuracy due to the large CLIC luminosity. Additional work has to be done to see how this accuracy can be exploited to distinguish the nature of the resonances.