text:
# 1 Introduction

## 1 Introduction

The NA50 interpretation of the data on $`J/\psi `$ suppression in $`pA`$, $`SU`$ and $`Pb`$ $`Pb`$ collisions is as follows . The $`pA`$, $`SU`$ and peripheral $`Pb`$ $`Pb`$ data (up to $`E_T35÷40`$ GeV), are well described with nuclear absorption alone with an absorptive cross-section $`\sigma _{abs}=6.4\pm 0.8`$ mb. At $`E_T40`$ GeV there is a sudden onset of anomalous suppression. A second accident occurs at $`E_T90÷100`$ GeV, close to the knee of the $`E_T`$ distribution, where a change of curvature in the shape of the suppression is observed – followed by a steep fall-off. However, at variance with this view, the most peripheral point in $`Pb`$ $`Pb`$ has consistently lied above the NA50 nuclear absorption curve – which extrapolates $`pA`$ and $`SU`$ data. This tendency is now confirmed by the preliminary data on the $`J/\psi `$ suppression versus the energy, $`E_{ZDC}`$, of the zero degree calorimeter. Here several peripheral points lie above the NA50 nuclear absorption curve and, more important, they exhibit a steeper suppression pattern. It is, therefore, important to study these data and to compare them with the results of deconfining and comover interactions models***For reviews of deconfining and comover interaction models, see . Alternative models have also been proposed .. This comparison is also of interest in the large $`E_T`$ region. Indeed, the NA50 data for $`Pb`$ $`Pb`$ collisions at large $`E_T`$ can be described either in a deconfining model  or as a result of the interaction with comovers .

Our purpose here is to confront with each other the results of two specific models, namely a deconfining  and a comovers interaction  model – and to compare them with experiment. In the first model , one requires either two sharp thresholds, as in , or a single threshold smoothed with an arbitrary function. Both in this model and in the comovers one , it is necessary to introduce the fluctuations in $`E_T`$  in order to reproduce the fall-off of the data at large $`E_T`$ (beyond the “knee” of the $`E_T`$ distribution). It has been shown in  that the effect of the $`E_T`$ fluctuations is significantly larger in the deconfining scenario than in the comovers approach. This leads to agreement with the large $`E_T`$ data in the first case – while the fall-off obtained in the comovers approach is too weak . However, all data beyond the knee have been obtained in the so-called Minimum Bias ($`MB`$) analysis, where only the ratio of $`J/\psi `$ to $`MB`$ cross-sections is measured and it is divided by a theoretical ratio of $`DY`$ to $`MB`$ cross-sections, i.e.

$$R_{MB}=\left(\frac{J/\psi }{DY}\right)_{MB}=\left(\frac{J/\psi }{MB}\right)_{exper.}/\left(\frac{DY}{MB}\right)_{th}.$$
(1)
In the theoretical model used by the NA50 collaboration , the ratio $`(DY/MB)_{th}`$ saturates at large $`E_T`$. In contrast, it has been argued in  that this ratio also falls at large $`E_T`$. This is due to the shift in $`E_T`$ between the $`DY`$ and $`MB`$ event samples, resulting from the $`E_T`$ taken by the dimuon. This shift is very small (of the order of a few per mil) and, therefore, has no visible effect up to the knee of the $`E_T`$ distribution – where this distribution is rather flat. However, it does have a sizeable effect in the tail, due to the very steep fall-off of the distribution. Actually, experimental data on the ratio $`DY/MB`$ are available . They do show a fall-off at large $`E_T`$, but the statistical errors are large. Obviously, the same effect should be present in the ratio $`J/\psi `$ over $`MB`$ and would cancel out in the true ratio of $`J/\psi `$ to $`DY`$ cross-sections – i.e. the one obtained in the so-called standard analysis. However, it does not cancel in $`R_{MB}`$ because this effect is not included in the theoretical model for the last factor in the r.h.s. of Eq. (1), used by the NA50 collaboration . When this effect, as estimated in , is taken into account, the comovers approach does describe the data for $`R_{MB}`$, whereas, in the deconfining model , the fall-off beyond the knee is too strong. This is shown in Fig. 1 where the dashed lines are the results in the comovers model  with and without $`E_T`$ loss. The upper solid line is the result obtained in the deconfining model . In this model one calculates the true ratio of $`J/\psi `$ to $`DY`$ differential cross-sections – not $`R_{MB}`$. Therefore, this line should be compared with the results in the standard analysis. To compare with the data in Fig. 1, which where obtained with the $`MB`$ analysis, one should take into account the $`E_T`$ loss. Incorporating this effect, following the prescription , one obtains the lower full curve in Fig. 1.

Clearly, a good way to avoid this problem is to measure $`R_{MB}`$ as a function of $`E_{ZDC}`$. Indeed, the main contribution to $`E_{ZDC}`$ is due to the energy of the spectator nucleons – which is not affected by the presence or absence of the dimuon trigger.

The plan of this paper is as follows. In Section 2 we derive the $`E_T`$ \- $`E_{ZDC}`$ correlation. It turns out that this correlation allows to relate to each other the $`MB`$ experimental distributions in the two variables – $`E_T`$ and $`E_{ZDC}`$. In Section 3 we compute the $`J/\psi `$ suppression versus $`E_{ZDC}`$ and compare it with the one measured in $`E_T`$, and with the results of the deconfining model . In Section 4, we compute the $`J/\psi `$ suppression in $`pA`$ and $`SU`$ in the comovers approach and compare the normalization in these systems with the one in $`PbPb`$. The scenario for $`J/\psi `$ suppression resulting from the comovers model is described in the Conclusions and confronted with the deconfining one.

## 2 ET \- EZDC correlation.

In the models , , one determines the $`J/\psi `$ suppression as a function of the impact parameter, $`b`$. However, $`b`$ is not measurable and the NA50 collaboration uses, as a measure of centrality, either $`E_T`$ or $`E_{ZDC}`$. It is, therefore, necessary to determine both quantities as a function of $`b`$. Since $`E_T`$ is proportional to the multiplicity, the relation between $`E_T`$ and $`b`$ results from the determination of the multiplicity at each $`b`$ in the rapidity region of the $`E_T`$ calorimeter. In the comovers model  this is done  in the Dual Parton Model (DPM). More precisely, we put :

$$E_T(b)=\frac{1}{2}qN_{yca}^{co}(b).$$
(2)
Here $`N_{yca}^{co}`$ is the charged multiplicity in the rapidity region of the $`E_T`$ calorimeter. The factor $`1/2`$ is introduced because only the energy of neutrals is measured by the calorimeter. Thus the coefficient $`q`$ is close to the average energy per particle. However, the difference between multiplicities of positive negatives and neutrals as well as the efficiency of the $`E_T`$ calorimeter do affect the value of $`q`$. This value can be determined from the position of the “knee” of the $`E_T`$ distribution of $`MB`$ events measured by the NA50 collaboration. We obtain $`q=0.62`$ GeV  (see below).

The energy of the zero degree calorimeter is given by

$$E_{ZDC}(b)=[An_A(b)]E_{in}+\alpha n_A(b)E_{in}.$$
(3)
Here $`An_A(b)`$ is the number of spectator nucleons of $`A`$ and $`E_{in}=158`$ GeV is the beam energy. While the first term in the r.h.s. of Eq. (3) gives the bulk of $`E_{ZDC}`$, the latter corresponds to the contamination by secondaries emitted very forward  – assumed to be proportional to the number of participants, $`n_A(b)`$. Here also the value of $`\alpha `$ can be precisely determined from the position of the “knee” of the $`E_{ZDC}`$ distribution of the $`MB`$ event sample measured by NA50 . We obtain $`\alpha =0.076`$.

Eqs. (2) and (3) give the relation between $`b`$ and $`E_T`$ and $`b`$ and $`E_{ZDC}`$, respectively. These relations refer to average values and do not contain any information about the tails of the $`E_T`$ or $`E_{ZDC}`$ distributions. Eqs. (2) and (3) also lead to a correlation between (average values of) $`E_T`$ and $`E_{ZDC}`$. This correlation is shown in Fig. 2, and gives a good description of the experimental one . We see from Fig. 2 that the $`E_TE_{ZDC}`$ correlation is close to a straight lineThis is due to the fact that $`N_{yca}^{co}(b)`$ in Eq. (2) is practically proportional to $`n_A(b)`$ (see Fig. 1 of ). and therefore can be accurately extrapolated beyond the knee of the $`E_T`$ and $`E_{ZDC}`$ distributions. It turns out that this extrapolation describes the data quite wellOne can understand the physical origin of this extrapolation if one assumes that a fluctuation in $`E_T`$ is essentially due to a fluctuation in $`n_A`$ – which, in turn, produces a corresponding fluctuation in $`E_{ZDC}`$, via Eq. (3).. Let us discuss this point in detail. It is well known that the correlation $`E_Tb`$ can be described by a Gaussian :

$$P(E_T,b)=\frac{1}{\sqrt{2\pi qaE_T(b)}}\mathrm{exp}\left[\frac{[E_TE_T(b)]^2}{2qaE_T(b)}\right]$$
(4)
with $`q=0.62`$ GeV and $`a=0.60`$ . The resulting $`MB`$ distribution is indistinguishable from the solid line of  (1998 data). The $`MB`$ distribution of the 1996 data  is reproduced with $`q=0.62`$ GeV and $`a=0.852`$ §§§ At first sight these sets of values look very different from the ones used by the NA50 Collaboration. Nevertheless, they reproduce the same $`E_T`$ distribution. This is due to the fact that the product $`qa`$, which, according to eq. (4), determines the width of the distribution, is very similar in the two cases. As for the difference in the values of $`q`$ it is just due to its definition, which is different in the two approaches (eq. (2), in our case)..

Applying the $`E_TE_{ZDC}`$ correlation resulting from Eqs. (2) and (3) we obtain the $`E_{ZDC}`$ distribution of $`MB`$ events shown in Figs. 3. We see that the NA50 data are well described, not only up to the knee, but also in the tail of the distribution. The turn-over in the data at large $`E_{ZDC}`$ is due to the fact that they have not been corrected for efficiency. The comparison of Figs. 3a and 3b is quite instructive. In Fig. 3a it seems that the calculated curve has too much curvature and overshoots the data at small $`E_{ZDC}`$. However, this is no longer the case in Fig. 3b. Here, on the other hand, there is some discrepancy in the region $`6<E_{ZDC}<12`$ TeV – which is not present in Fig. 3a. Finally, the calculated curve is slightly too broad at the tail in Fig. 3a and too narrow in Fig. 3b. From this comparison, we conclude that Eq. (4), supplemented with the $`E_TE_{ZDC}`$ correlation of Fig. 2, gives a good description of the $`E_{ZDC}`$ distribution when both the 1996 and the 1998 data are considered.

The consequences of this result are quite interesting. Indeed, the $`E_TE_{ZDC}`$ is essentially a correlation between multiplicity (which in the rapidity region of the calorimeter is practically proportional to the number of participants) and number of spectators. Hence it cannot be affected by the dimuon triggerExcept in the tails, where the $`E_T`$ loss affects the $`E_T`$ distributions of $`J/\psi `$ and $`DY`$ without changing the $`E_{ZDC}`$ ones.. Therefore, not only the $`MB`$, but also the $`E_{ZDC}`$ distributions of $`J/\psi `$ and $`DY`$ event samples can be obtained from the corresponding ones versus $`E_T`$ applying the $`E_TE_{ZDC}`$ correlation. This is an important result since it allows to relate to each other the $`J/\psi `$ suppression versus $`E_T`$ and versus $`E_{ZDC}`$ (obtained with a different calorimeter) and check their consistency.

## 3 J/$`\psi `$ suppression versus EZDC.

We show in Fig. 4 the results for the ratio of $`J/\psi `$ to $`DY`$ cross-sections versus $`E_{ZDC}`$ obtained in the deconfining model  and in the comovers model . The curves, are obtained from the corresponding ones versus $`E_T`$ (upper solid and dashed cuerves in Fig. 1), applying the $`E_TE_{ZDC}`$ correlation given by Eqs. (2) and (3) and shown in Fig. 2. We keep the absolute normalizations unchanged. No $`E_T`$ loss is incorporated in these calculations (see below).

Comparing the data with the model predictions, we see that a better description of the small $`E_{ZDC}`$ region is obtained when the $`E_T`$ fluctuations are taken into account. This was to be expected since the fluctuations in $`E_T`$ and $`E_{ZDC}`$ are related to each other via the $`E_TE_{ZDC}`$ correlation – as shown in Fig. 2.

As discussed above, the effect of the $`E_T`$ loss is not included here since $`E_{ZDC}`$ is not affected by the dimuon triggerActually, some effect of the $`E_T`$ loss could be present in the $`J/\psi `$ suppression versus $`E_{ZDC}`$ via the second term of Eq. (3). However, this effect should be rather small due to the large rapidity separation of the dimuon trigger and the zero degree calorimeter.. Nevertheless, the curve obtained in the comovers approach does describe the most central data while it failed to describe the data versus $`E_T`$ at large $`E_T`$ (see Fig. 1). This result lends support to the interpretation in ref.  – namely that this discrepancy is due to the $`E_T`$-loss induced by the $`J/\psi `$ trigger.

We also see in Fig. 4 that the fall-off for central events is stronger in the deconfining than in the comovers model. The present data do not allow to discriminate between them. However, this should be possible when the shape and absolute normalization of the data are better known - possibly with the 2000 NA50 data.

Turning to the large $`E_{ZDC}`$ region (peripheral events), we see that the data favor the comovers model. Indeed, it is clear that, in the present data, the ratio $`R_{MB}(E_{ZDC})`$ at large $`E_{ZDC}`$ falls more steeply than the NA50 nuclear absorption curve – fitting $`pA`$ and $`SU`$ data. If confirmed, this would clearly disfavor the deconfining model – where nuclear absorption is assumed to be the only source of suppression below the deconfining threshold. On the contrary, such a feature is expected in a comovers approach, and is clearly seen in Fig. 4.

An important observation from Fig. 4 is the fact that the pattern of $`J/\psi `$ suppression in the NA50 data is different in $`E_T`$ and $`E_{ZDC}`$ – at least in the region $`9<E_{ZDC}<14`$ TeV. This is at variance with the results in Section 2, according to which the shapes of the two curves should be the same. More precisely, if the shape of the $`J/\psi `$ suppression in $`E_{ZDC}`$ is different from the one in $`E_T`$ for whatever reason (for instance, due to the different calorimeters), the shape of the $`MB`$ distribution in the two variables should also be different – and it is not. This point needs to be clarified. It should be noted here that the ratio of $`J/\psi `$ to $`DY`$ differential cross-sections obtained in the standard analysis , although consistent with the one obtained in the $`MB`$ analysis, do not show any sign of a different pattern with respect to the one versus $`E_T`$. This is illustrated in Fig. 5 where the standard analysis data are compared with the same theoretical curves of Fig. 4. Note also that in the $`MB`$ analysis the absolute normalization is not measured. It is determined from the one obtained with the standard analysis. This determination can not be precise due to the uncertainty in the shape of the $`J/\psi `$ suppression discussed above. Actually, the adjustment of the absolute normalization has been done  in the region $`8<E_{ZCD}<17`$ TeV – where the difference in the shape of the $`E_T`$ and $`E_{ZDC}`$ distributions is the largest.

Further insight in the comparison of comovers and deconfining models can be gained by studying the $`J/\psi `$ suppression in lighter systems.

## 4 J/$`\psi `$ suppression in pA and SU.

Let us compute the ratio $`J/\psi `$ over $`DY`$ in $`SU`$ at 200 GeV/c per nucleon in the model . We use, of course, the same values of the parameters as in $`PbPb`$ : $`\sigma _{abs}=4.5`$ mb and $`\sigma _{co}=1`$ mb. To get this ratio versus $`b`$, the only new ingredient is the multiplicity of comovers – which is again computed in DPM, in the way described in . In this case, only $`R(E_T)`$ is available ($`R(E_{ZDC})`$ has not been measured in $`SU`$). In $`SU`$, data do not extend beyond the knee of the $`E_T`$-distribution. Therefore, effects such as $`E_T`$ fluctuations or $`E_T`$ loss are not relevant here. To compute $`R(E_T)`$, we also need the $`E_Tb`$ correlation which is parametrized as in Eq. (4). The parameters $`q`$ and $`a`$ have been obtained from a fit of the $`E_T`$-distribution of $`DY`$ given in . We obtain $`q=0.69`$ GeV and $`a=1.6`$.

Our results are shown in Fig. 6a. We see that the $`E_T`$ dependence of the suppression is reproduced – in spite of the fact that our $`\sigma _{abs}`$ is smaller than in the NA50 nuclear absorption model. This is due to the suppression by comovers. Actually, the effect of the comovers in $`SU`$ is comparatively small for all values of $`E_T`$. However, its contribution increases with $`E_T`$ and compensates for the difference in the values of $`\sigma _{abs}`$ in the two approaches.

A recent reanalysis of the $`pA`$ data at 450 GeV  leads to a value $`\sigma _{abs}=4.7\pm 0.8`$ mb in good agreement with the one used in the comovers approach. This value is significantly lower that the one, $`\sigma _{abs}=6.4`$ mb, used in the NA50 nuclear absorption curve. A value $`\sigma _{abs}=4`$ mb is used in the deconfining model of ref. . However, within the deconfining approach such a value of $`\sigma _{abs}`$ has the drawback of producing a $`J/\psi `$ suppression pattern in $`SU`$ which is flatter than the data – unless, of course, one reduces substantially the value of the threshold, thereby introducing some anomalous suppression in SU.

Let us now discuss the absolute normalization of the curve in Fig. 6a which is 46.8. This number has to be compared with the ratio of $`J/\psi `$ to $`DY`$ $`pp`$ cross-sections, rescaled at 200 GeV, which is $`46.6\pm 5`$ . This nice agreement between $`pp`$ and $`SU`$ tends to indicate that the $`pA`$ data will also be reproduced (see also ). This is indeed the case, as shown in Fig. 6b.

Our result gives an $`A`$-dependence between $`pp`$ and $`pU`$ $`A^\alpha `$ with $`\alpha =0.943`$. This is to be compared with the NA38 value $`\alpha =0.919\pm 0.015`$  and with the E866  one $`\alpha =0.955\pm 0.02\pm 1`$ % systematics.

We can now compare the absolute normalization of our curve for $`pp`$, $`pA`$ and $`SU`$ (46.8) with the corresponding one for $`Pb`$ $`Pb`$ (59.4). As we see, there is a 27 % difference. According to the NA50 estimates , 9 % of this difference is due to the rescaling from $`SU`$ at 200 GeV to $`Pb`$ $`Pb`$ at 158 GeV. This factor 1.09 contains both energy and isospin corrections\**\**\**N. Armesto (private communication) has recalculated these corrections. He has confirmed the NA50 results concerning isospin. However, he finds an energy dependence of the $`DY`$ practically identical to the one of $`J/\psi `$ estimated by NA50 – leading to a ratio of $`J/\psi `$ to $`DY`$ cross-sections practically energy independent. This would solve the problem with the rescaling in energy used by NA50 in which the central value for the ratio $`J/\psi `$ over $`DY`$ in $`pp`$ decreases between 158 GeV (48.9) and 200 GeV (46.6) and increases from 200 to 450 GeV (54.7).. Therefore, it remains a real discrepancy of about 17 % in the relative normalization of $`pp`$, $`pA`$ and $`SU`$, on the one hand, and $`Pb`$ $`Pb`$ on the other hand. This point needs clarification.

## 5 Conclusions

The deconfining – NA50 scenario, has been described in the first lines of this work. The alternative scenario obtained in the comovers model  is summarized in Fig. 7. The curves in Fig. 7 are obtained from the ones in Figs. 1 ($`PbPb`$), 6a ($`SU`$) and 6b ($`pp`$ and $`pA`$), using the relation between $`A`$ and $`L`$ (in $`pA`$) and $`E_T`$ and $`L`$ (in $`SU`$ and $`PbPb`$) given by NA38-NA50. In this Figure we see that there are two different curves for $`pA`$ (dashed line) and $`SU`$ (full line). This is due to the effect of the comovers. Contrary to nuclear absorption, which is a universal function of $`L`$, the comovers contribution at a given value of $`L`$ is different in different systems. In particular, its effect turns out to be negligible in $`pA`$. As already seen in Fig. 6a and 6b the agreement with the data is good, both in $`pA`$ and $`SU`$. The $`PbPb`$ data are not shown in this Figure. They follow quite well the shape of the theoretical curve (dashed line), as demonstrated in Fig. 1 (lower dashed line). However, their absolute normalization is 17 % higher than the theoretical one, as discussed above. In the comovers model, the $`J/\psi `$ suppression in $`PbPb`$ is larger than the one in $`SU`$ (at the same $`L`$) and significantly steeper - indicating an important anomalous suppression, present even in the most peripheral events. The data do support the latter result – which favors the comovers scenario. For central events, it lends support to the interpretation of ref. , according to which the discrepancy between the comovers model and $`R_{MB}`$, eq. (1), is due to the $`E_T`$ loss induced by the $`J/\psi `$ trigger. Indeed, the data versus $`E_{ZDC}`$ (which are not affected by this $`E_T`$ loss) are well reproduced. Hopefully, a clear-cut discrimination between the deconfining and comovers scenarios will be possible with the 2000 NA50 data.

Acknowledgments

We thank N. Armesto, E. G. Ferreiro, A. Kaidalov and C. A. Salgado for discussions and E. Scomparini for information on the NA50 data. D. S. thanks Fundación Barrie de la Maza for financial support. This work was supported in part by the European Community-Access to Research Infrastructure Action of the Improving Human Potential Program.

## Figure Captions

Fig. 1 : Ratio of $`J/\psi `$ to $`DY`$ cross-sections versus $`E_T`$ in $`Pb`$ $`Pb`$ collisions at 158 GeV per nucleon in the deconfining model  (solid) and in the comovers model  (dashed). In both cases the upper (lower) curves are obtained without (with) $`E_T`$ loss.

Fig. 2 : The correlation $`E_TE_{ZDC}`$ obtained from Eqs. (2) and (3) and its extrapolation to the tails of these distributions (see main text).

Fig. 3 : $`E_{ZDC}`$ distribution of $`MB`$ events obtained from Eq. (4) applying the $`E_TE_{ZDC}`$ correlation of Fig. 2. The data in Fig. 3a were taken in 1998  and those in Fig. 3b were taken in 1996 .

Fig. 4 : Ratio of $`J/\psi `$ to $`DY`$ cross-sections versus $`E_{ZDC}`$ in $`Pb`$ $`Pb`$ collisions at 158 GeV per nucleon in the deconfining model  (solid) and in the comovers model  (dashed). These curves are obtained from the corresponding ones versus $`E_T`$ (upper solid and dashed lines in Fig. 1) applying the $`E_TE_{ZDC}`$ correlation of Fig. 2. The dotted line is obtained without $`E_T`$ fluctuations. The data, obtained with the minimum bias analysis, are from ref. . The NA50 nuclear absorption curve  is also shown.

Fig. 5 : Same theoretical curves as in Fig. 4, compared with the data obtained in the standard analysis .

Fig. 6a : The ratio of $`J/\psi `$ to $`DY`$ cross-sections as a function of $`E_T`$ in $`SU`$ collisions at 200 GeV per nucleon obtained in the comovers model . The data are from .

6b : The ratio $`J/\psi `$ over $`A`$ in $`pp`$ and $`pA`$ collisions at 450 GeV as a function of $`A`$ obtained in the comovers model . The data are from .

Fig. 7 : The ratio of $`J/\psi `$ to $`DY`$ cross-section versus $`L`$  for $`pp`$, $`pA`$ (dotted line) and $`SU`$ at 200 GeV (solid line) and $`PbPb`$ (dashed line) at 158 GeV, obtained in the comovers model  with a common normalization 46.8. Note that this normalization is not calculable in the model. The data are from  .

Fig. 1

Fig. 2

Fig. 3a

Fig. 3b

Fig. 4

Fig. 5

Fig. 6

Fig. 7


format: text

text:
# Superconductivity and Chiral Symmetry Breaking with Fermion Clusters

## 1 INTRODUCTION

During the last few years a new class of fermion algorithms have emerged. The essential progress is a result of our ability to rewrite certain fermionic partition functions as a sum over configurations of bond variables with positive definite weights , i.e.,

$$Z=\underset{[b]}{}W[b]\overline{\mathrm{Sign}}[b]$$
(1)
where $`W[b]>0`$ is the weight of the bond configuration $`[b]`$ and $`\overline{\mathrm{Sign}}[b]0`$ is an entropy factor that takes into account degrees of freedom other than the bond variables. Typically, the Pauli principle is encoded in the topology of clusters formed by lattice sites connected through the bonds. Clusters also carry a variety of interesting physical information. For example, sizes of certain clusters are related to condensates, the squares of the sizes of clusters yield susceptibilities. Further, clusters are useful in building efficient algorithms close to critical points where the correlation lengths diverge since they allow non-local updates with a reasonable acceptance. This property has helped in studying critical phenomena in fermionic models with unmatched precision.

## 2 SUPERCONDUCTIVITY

The recent success of cluster methods in fermionic systems originates from the Hamiltonian approach. One starts by writing the partition function in terms of configurations of fermion occupation numbers whose Boltzmann weight is not guaranteed to be positive definite. By introducing additional bond variables which help in the integration over the fermion occupation numbers, the partition function of certain models can be rewritten in the form of eq. (1). Configurations with clusters of a specific topology, called merons, then yield $`\overline{\mathrm{Sign}}[b]=0`$.

Recently, superconductivity in a two dimensional attractive Hubbard type model was studied using the meron cluster approach. The fermion pairing susceptibility $`\chi `$ is a useful observable. It is expected to satisfy the finite size scaling formula

$$\chi =\{\begin{array}{cc}L^{2\eta (T)}& T<T_c\\ \text{Const.}& T>T_c\end{array}$$
(2)
if the superconducting transition belongs to the Kosterlitz-Thouless (KT) universality class, with $`0\eta (T)0.25`$, $`\eta (T_c)=0.25`$ and $`\eta (0)=0`$. In the specific model studied, $`\chi `$ turns out to be a sum over the square of the size of each cluster in the zero meron sector and the product of the size of the merons in the two meron sector. Figure 1 shows a plot of the susceptibility as a function of lattice size for various temperatures. Consistency with KT predictions is clear.

Another observable relevant to the study of superconductivity is the spatial fermion winding number susceptibility $`W^2`$ . Although this is difficult to evaluate with conventional algorithms, it is relatively straight forward in the meron cluster approach. Each cluster can be assigned a spatial fermion winding number. The susceptibility then turns out to be the sum over the square of each cluster’s spatial winding number in the zero meron sector and the product of the spatial winding number of meron clusters in the two meron sector. In the infinite volume limit below the critical temperature, one can combine known results to obtain $`2\pi \eta (T)W^2=1`$. Results again show consistency with this expectation. Preliminary results from this study was presented in  and the final analysis in .

## 3 CHIRAL SYMMETRY BREAKING

Although the recent success has been applied to Hamiltonian models of chiral symmetry breaking , cluster methods are applicable to more conventional Lagrangian models as well. For example, consider strongly coupled lattice gauge theory with massless staggered fermions in which the $`U(1)`$ chiral symmetry is expected to be broken spontaneously in four dimensions . This result was obtained by mapping the massive model into a statistical mechanics of monomer-dimer-polymer (MDP) system with positive definite Boltzmann weights and extrapolating the results to the chiral limit. Unfortunately, as far as we know, it has been difficult to devise algorithms in the chiral limit where the systems become constrained. Local metropolis updates which can be formulated in the massive case become exponentially inefficient in the chiral limit. Here we argue that cluster representations of the MDP systems yield useful algorithms directly in the chiral limit.

To understand the cluster representation consider for simplicity the strongly coupled $`U(1)`$ gauge system. The partition function in this case is given by the number of closely-packed-dimer (CPD) configurations on a lattice. A typical CPD configuration in two dimensions is shown in Fig. 2.

Such configurations are also of interest in statistical mechanics and play an important role in the solution to the 2-d Ising model . The chiral symmetry of staggered fermions is manifest in this representation by the fact that the chiral condensate vanishes since it is impossible to find a CPD configuration with one defect (one site has no dimer lines attached to it). The chiral susceptibility on the other hand is non-zero and proportional to the ratio of the total number of CPD configurations with two defects (two sites are not connected by dimers) and the partition function.

It is possible to extend CPD configurations to configurations of loops made up of bonds which include the original or “filled” dimers (represented here by “solid” bonds) and “empty” dimers (represented by “dashed” bonds) such that the partition function can be expressed as a sum over weights of new loop configurations. Figure 3 shows the rules of one such extension in two dimensions. Each shaded plaquette of the CPD configuration of Fig. 2 carries one of the seven plaquette configurations given on the left side of equations in Fig. 3. It is easy to check that all constraints are satisfied if each loop is made up of a repeating sequence of filled and empty dimers. The usefulness of the loop variable is that a dimer system can be updated by “flipping” a loop where filled dimers are emptied and vice versa. The acceptance of such a flip is reasonable and leads to a useful algorithm.

The chiral susceptibility gets contributions when a part of the loop is flipped and can be measured easily along with the update. The algorithm was first applied to the two dimensional model. Although a $`U(1)`$ chiral symmetry cannot spontaneously break in two dimensions, long range correlations can arise as predicted by the Kosterlitz-Thouless universality class as discussed in the previous section. Figure 4 plots the chiral susceptibility with system size. Surprisingly, although the data is not inconsistent with the presence of long range correlations, the susceptibility does not seem to follow the predictions of eq. (2). This puzzle is currently being investigated along with extensions to higher dimensions.

I would like to thank J. Osborn and U. Wiese for their collaboration.


text:
# A remark on Fourier pairing and binomial formula for Macdonald polynomials

## 1 Introduction

Fourier pairing, introduced by Cherednik , is a fundamental notion in the theory of Macdonald polynomials. In its simplest instance, it pairs the algebra $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_n`$ of symmetric polynomials in $`n`$ variables with the algebra $`𝒟_n`$ of Macdonald commuting difference operators acting on $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_n`$ . By definition,

$$D,f=\left[Df\right](\widehat{0}),D𝒟_n,f\mathrm{\Lambda }_n,$$
(1)
where $`\widehat{0}`$ is a certain distinguished point. There is a natural isomorphism $`𝒟_n\mathrm{\Lambda }_n`$, which makes (1) a quadratic form on $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_n`$. The most important and useful property of this form is its symmetry, see .

The main observation of this note is that there is a very natural orthogonal basis for the form (1). Namely, this is the basis $`\{I_\mu \}`$ of the interpolation Macdonald polynomials, which have been intensively studied by Knop, Olshanski, Sahi, the author, and others, see for example  and also , and references therein. The polynomials $`I_\mu `$ are defined by some very simple multivariate Newton-type interpolation conditions and have found many remarkable applications.

The orthogonality of $`I_\mu `$ with respect to (1), stated as Theorem 1 below, follows rather easily from the definitions, without using any nontrivial properties of the polynomials $`I_\mu `$. It implies at once that (1) is symmetric.

Also, the orthogonality of $`I_\mu `$ gives immediately the expansion of the simultaneous eigenfunctions of $`𝒟_n`$, known as the symmetric Macdonald polynomials $`P_\lambda `$, in the basis $`\{I_\mu \}`$. This expansion, reproduced in Theorem 3 below, is the binomial formula for $`P_\lambda `$, see . In fact, the orthogonality of $`I_\mu `$ is essentially equivalent to the binomial theorem, but it certainly appears to be a much more basic, natural, and appealing property.

The binomial theorem of  has been extended to a more general setting, including other classical root systems and the nonsymmetric Macdonald polynomials, see . We are not trying to pursue the greatest possible generality in this note. Our intention, rather, is to show how the basic idea works in the simplest nontrivial example of the usual symmetric Macdonald polynomials. We even consider the (almost) trivial one-dimensional case first to give a completely elementary illustration of what is going on.

It should be pointed out that there is another source of orthogonality relations for the polynomials $`I_\mu `$. Namely, the polynomials $`I_\mu `$ can be obtained from the symmetric Macdonald polynomials of type $`BC_n`$ (this can be seen very explicitly by degenerating the binomial formula of  to the binomial formula for the polynomials $`I_\mu `$ ).

This note is based my unpublished paper written in Fall of 1997. Later, it was intended to be a part of a survey article on interpolation Macdonald polynomials on which we were working together with G. Olshanski. I would like to thank NSF (grant DMS-0096246), Sloan foundation, and Packard foundation for financial support.

## 2 Simplest example

### 2.1

As a warm-up, let us consider the one-dimensional case first. Let the operator $`T`$ act on polynomials in $`x`$ by

$$\left[Tf\right](x)=f(qx).$$

Obviously, the monomials $`x^n`$, $`n=0,1,2,\mathrm{}`$, are the eigenfunctions of this operator with eigenvalues $`q^n`$ . Consider the following bilinear form

$$g,f=\left[g(T)f\right](1).$$
(2)
In the basis $`\{x^n\}`$, this form has the matrix

$$\left[q^{nm}\right]_{n,m=0,1,\mathrm{}}=\left[\begin{array}{ccccc}1& 1& 1& 1& \mathrm{}\\ 1& q& q^2& q^3& \mathrm{}\\ 1& q^2& q^4& q^6& \mathrm{}\\ 1& q^3& q^6& q^9& \mathrm{}\\ \mathrm{}& \mathrm{}& \mathrm{}& \mathrm{}& \mathrm{}\end{array}\right]$$

and is clearly symmetric.

It is also obvious that

$$x^{}=T,T^{}=x,$$
(3)
where $`x`$ denotes the operator of multiplication by the independent variable and star denotes the adjoint operator with respect to (2). Clearly, (3) is an anti-automorphism of the $`q`$-Heisenberg algebra generated by $`T`$ and $`x`$ (subject to the relation $`Tx=qxT`$) and deserves to be called the *Fourier transform*.

### 2.2

Now consider the polynomial

$$I_n=(x1)(xq)\mathrm{}(xq^{n1}),n=0,1,\mathrm{},$$
(4)
satisfying the following Newton interpolation conditions

$`I_nx^nmod\{x^m\}_{m<n},`$ (5)
$`I_n(q^m)=0,0m<n.`$ (6)
We have the following

###### Proposition 1.

The polynomials $`I_n`$ are orthogonal with respect to the form (2), namely

$$I_n,I_m=\delta _{n,m}I_n(q^n).$$
(7)
###### Proof.

We will intentionally avoid using the symmetry of (2) in our argument because, in the general case, we want to obtain the analogous symmetry as a corollary.

It is clear from definition (2) that

$$x^n,f=f(q^n),$$
(8)
and since $`Tx^n=q^nx^n`$ we also have

$$g,x^n=g(q^n).$$

From (6) it now follows that

$$x^m,I_n=I_n,x^m=0,m<n,$$

and it is also clear that

$$x^n,I_n=I_n,x^n=I_n(q^n).$$

Now the property (5) concludes the proof. ∎

The following expansion is immediate from (7) and (8)

$$x^n=\underset{m}{}\frac{x^n,I_m}{I_m,I_m}I_m(x)=\underset{m}{}\frac{I_m(q^n)I_m(x)}{I_m(q^m)}.$$

This is the Newton interpolation of $`x^n`$ with nodes $`1,q,q^2,\mathrm{}`$ and also an instance of the $`q`$-binomial theorem.

## 3 Symmetric Macdonald polynomials

### 3.1

We now turn to polynomials in $`n`$ variables $`x_1,\mathrm{},x_n`$. We denote

$$\left[T_if\right](x_1,\mathrm{},x_n)=f(x_1,\mathrm{},qx_i,\mathrm{},x_n).$$

Let $`t`$ be an additional parameter and introduce, following Macdonald , the following operators

$$D_k=t^{k(k1)/2}\underset{|S|=k}{}d_S(x)\underset{iS}{}T_i,$$

where the summation is over subsets $`S\{1,\mathrm{},n\}`$ of cardinality $`k`$ and

$$d_S(x)=\underset{iS,jS}{}\frac{tx_ix_j}{x_ix_j}.$$

### 3.2

The operators $`D_k`$ commute and take symmetric polynomial to symmetric polynomials. They act triangularly in the basis of monomial symmetric functions, namely,

$$D_km_\lambda e_k(\widehat{\lambda })m_\lambda mod\{m_\mu \}_{\mu <\lambda },$$

where $`\lambda =(\lambda _1\lambda _2\mathrm{}\lambda _n)`$ is a partition,

$$m_\lambda =x_1^{\lambda _1}\mathrm{}x_n^{\lambda _n}+\text{permutations}$$

is the corresponding monomial symmetric function, $`e_k=m_{(1^k)}`$ is the $`k`$th elementary symmetric function, $`\widehat{\lambda }`$ denotes the following point

$$\widehat{\lambda }=(q^{\lambda _1}t^{n1},q^{\lambda _2}t^{n2},\mathrm{},q^{\lambda _{n1}}t,q^{\lambda _n}),$$

and $`\mu <\lambda `$ stands for the dominance order on partitions

$$\mu \lambda \left(\begin{array}{c}\mu _1\lambda _1,\\ \mu _1+\mu _2\lambda _1+\lambda _2,\\ \mathrm{}\\ \mu _1+\mathrm{}+\mu _n=\lambda _1+\mathrm{}+\lambda _n\end{array}\right).$$

The simultaneous eigenfunctions of $`D_k`$

$$D_kP_\lambda =e_k(\widehat{\lambda })P_\lambda ,$$
(9)
normalized by

$$P_\lambda m_\lambda mod\{m_\mu \}_{\mu <\lambda }$$
(10)
are known as the Macdonald symmetric polynomials.

### 3.3

Let $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_n`$ denote the algebra of symmetric polynomials in $`n`$ variables. It is clear from (9) that the map

$$D:\mathrm{\Lambda }_ne_kD_k$$

extends to an algebra homomorphism such that

$$D(g)P_\lambda =g(\widehat{\lambda })P_\lambda ,g\mathrm{\Lambda }_n.$$
(11)
We now define, following Cherednik , the following *Fourier pairing*

$$g,f=\left[D(g)f\right](\widehat{0}),f,g\mathrm{\Lambda }_n.$$
(12)
This is an analog of (2). It is clear that

$$hg,f=g,D(h)f.$$

In other words, $`D(h)=h^{}`$, where $`h`$ is considered as a multiplication operator and star denotes its *Fourier transform*, that is, the adjoint operator with respect to (12). It is also clear from (9) that the pairing (12) takes the normalized eigenfunction

$$N_\lambda =\frac{P_\lambda }{P_\lambda (\widehat{0})}$$
(13)
to the $`\delta `$-function at $`\widehat{\lambda }`$, namely

$$g,N_\lambda =g(\widehat{\lambda }).$$
(14)
### 3.4

Our goal is now to produce an explicit orthogonal basis for the quadratic form (12). As in (4), this basis will consist of certain Newton interpolation polynomials.

Let $`\mathrm{}`$ be any total ordering of the set of partitions $`\lambda `$ compatible with both the ordering of partitions by their size $`|\lambda |`$ and, for partitions of the same number, the dominance ordering. Define the interpolation Macdonald polynomials $`I_\mu `$ by the following generalization of (5) and (6)

$`I_\mu m_\mu mod\{m_\lambda \}_{\lambda \mathrm{}\mu },`$ (15)
$`I_\mu (\widehat{\lambda })=0,\lambda \mathrm{}\mu .`$ (16)
The existence and uniqueness of such polynomials for generic $`q`$ and $`t`$ is clear from their existence and uniqueness for $`t=1`$, which is elementary.

### 3.5

It can be shown, see for example  and also , that the polynomials $`I_\mu `$ do not depend on the choice of the ordering $`\mathrm{}`$ and satisfy the much stronger *extra vanishing* property

$$I_\mu (\widehat{\lambda })=0,\mu \lambda .$$
(17)
By the binomial formula (22), this gives the following strengthening of (15)

$$I_\mu P_\mu mod\{P_\lambda \}_{\lambda \mu }.$$
(18)
The extra vanishing (17) will not, however, be needed for what follows making our argument applicable in the situations where the analog of (17) is not available.

### 3.6

Our main result is the following

###### Theorem 1.

The polynomials $`I_\mu `$ are orthogonal with respect to the Fourier pairing (12).

An immediate corollary of this theorem is the following central result of the theory of Macdonald polynomials

###### Corollary 1 (Koornwinder,).

The Fourier pairing (12) is symmetric.

Koornwinder actually proved an equivalent symmetry, namely the following label-argument symmetry for the normalized polynomials (13)

$$N_\lambda (\widehat{\mu })=N_\mu (\widehat{\lambda }).$$

Numerous application of this symmetry, such as, for example, Pieri-type formulas for Macdonald polynomials, can be found in .

### 3.7

The proof of Theorem 1 goes in two steps. First, we claim that

$$I_\mu ,I_\lambda =0,\mu \mathrm{}\lambda .$$

Indeed, by (15), (10), and (14), this is equivalent to

$$I_\mu ,N_\lambda =I_\mu (\widehat{\lambda })=0,\mu \mathrm{}\lambda ,$$

which is indeed true by (16).

### 3.8

Now we prove that

$$I_\mu ,I_\lambda =0,\mu \mathrm{}\lambda .$$

By (15) this is equivalent to proving that $`m_\mu ,I_\lambda =0`$ if $`\mu \mathrm{}\lambda `$. Since

$$e_\mu \stackrel{\text{def}}{=}e_{\mu _1}\mathrm{}e_{\mu _n}m_\mu mod\{m_\nu \}_{\nu <\mu },$$

it suffices to prove that

$$e_\mu ,I_\lambda =0,\mu \mathrm{}\lambda .$$

By definition (12), this is equivalent to

$$\left[D_\mu I_\lambda \right](\widehat{0})=0,D_\mu =D_{\mu _1}\mathrm{}D_{\mu _n},$$
(19)
which will now be established.

### 3.9

It is a crucial property of the operators $`D_k`$ that

$$\left(\begin{array}{c}\lambda _i=\lambda _{i+1},\hfill \\ iS,i+1S\hfill \end{array}\right)d_S(\widehat{\lambda })=0.$$

It follows that

$$\left[D_kf\right](\widehat{\lambda })=\underset{\nu /\lambda =\text{vertical }k\text{-strip}}{}d_{S(\nu ,\lambda )}(\widehat{\lambda })f(\widehat{\nu }),$$

where $`S(\nu ,\lambda )=\{i,\nu _i>\lambda _i\}`$ . It follows that

$$\left[D_\mu f\right](\widehat{0})=\underset{\nu \mu }{}c_{\mu ,\nu }f(\widehat{\nu }),$$
(20)
for some coefficients $`c_{\mu ,\nu }`$. A similar property can be established in more general context, such as e.g. for nonsymmetric Macdonald polynomials .

It is clear that (20) together with (16) imply (19) and this concludes the proof of Theorem 1.

### 3.10

Theorem 1 can be sharpened as follows

###### Theorem 2.

We have

$$I_\mu ,I_\nu =\delta _{\mu ,\nu }I_\mu (\widehat{\mu })P_\mu (\widehat{0})=\delta _{\mu ,\nu }c_{\mu ,\mu }I_\mu (\widehat{\mu }).$$
(21)
In particular, this shows that $`P_\mu (\widehat{0})=c_{\mu ,\mu }`$ which, after making the number $`c_{\mu ,\mu }`$ explicit, can be seen to be equivalent to the known formula for $`P_\mu (\widehat{0})`$, see .

###### Proof.

Arguing as in Section 3.7, we see that

$$I_\mu ,I_\mu =I_\mu ,P_\mu =I_\mu (\widehat{\mu })P_\mu (\widehat{0}).$$

On the other hand, arguing as in Section 3.8, we get

$$I_\mu ,I_\mu =\left[D_\mu I_\mu \right](\widehat{0})=c_{\mu ,\mu }I_\mu (\widehat{\mu }).$$

### 3.11

Theorem 2 implies the following Newton interpolation formula

$$f=\underset{\mu }{}\frac{I_\mu ,f}{I_\mu ,I_\mu }I_\mu ,f\mathrm{\Lambda }_n.$$

In particular, applying this to $`N_\lambda `$ and using (14) we obtain the following expansion (in which we explicitly kept the variables $`x`$ in order to stress the label-argument symmetry).

###### Theorem 3 (Binomial theorem, ).

We have

$$N_\lambda (x)=\underset{\mu }{}\frac{I_\mu (\widehat{\lambda })I_\mu (x)}{I_\mu ,I_\mu }.$$
(22)
It follows from (17) that only those $`\mu `$ such that $`\mu \lambda `$ actually appear in this expansion.


text:
# Self healing slip pulses along a gel/glass interface

## Abstract

We present an experimental evidence of self-healing shear cracks at a gel$`/`$glass interface. This system exhibits two dynamical regimes depending on the driving velocity : steady sliding at high velocity ($`>V_\text{c}100`$$`125\mu `$m$`/`$s), caracterized by a shear-thinning rheology, and periodic stick-slip dynamics at low velocity. In this last regime, slip occurs by propagation of pulses that restick via a “healing instability” occuring when the local sliding velocity reaches the macroscopic transition velocity $`V_\text{c}`$. At driving velocities close below $`V_\text{c}`$, the system exhibits complex spatio-temporal behavior.

There has been in the last decade a sustained interest in the question of the existence, characteristics and dynamical behavior of slip pulses propagating along sheared frictional interfaces. The relevance of such “self-healing cracks” to seismic dynamics was first demonstrated by Heaton Heaton (1990) from inversion of seismic data. They have been evidenced as playing an important role in the complex sliding dynamical behavior of Burridge-Knopoff types of models Carlson et al. (1994), and are being studied by mechanicians Ranjith and Rice (2001), who have recently proved the essential importance, in this context, of the detailed features of the underlying friction law. These multifarious developments are to be contrasted with the much less advanced state of experimental studies in this field. Rubio and Galeano Rubio and Galeano (1994), studying gels sliding against plexiglass (lucite) in a Couette geometry, observed a regime of inhomogeneous sliding via such self-healing pulses. These have also been found by Anooshehpoor and Brune Anooshehpoor and Brune (1994) with an interface between dissimilar foam rubbers. However, no systematic charaterization of the range of driving velocities where they exist, nor of their detailed structure is yet, to our knowledge, available.

In this Letter, we report the results of such a study, perfomed on a gel (aqueous gelatin) sliding on glass, in a linear geometry. Total sliding force measurements evidence at low driving velocity $`V`$, a regime of periodic stick-slip which bifurcates, at $`V=V_\text{c}100\mu `$m/s, towards stationary sliding. Simultaneous optical observation allows us to show that, in the stick-slip regime, slip is inhomogeneous. It occurs via the propagation of self healing pulses with no observable opening (in contrast with Schallamach waves Schallamach (1971)), nucleated periodically at the trailing edge of the sliding block. The measurement of the sliding velocity profile within these pulses shows that resticking is determined by a “healing instability” occurring at the above mentioned critical velocity $`V_\text{c}`$. This points towards the intimate connection between pulse existence and the detailed form of the velocity dependence of the dynamic frictional stress. Moreover, the velocity of the fracture-like pulse front can be related with small scale characteristics of the gel, namely its mesh size — in agreement with qualitative arguments put forward by Tanaka et al. Tanaka et al. (1999) to account for mode I fracture dynamics in a bulk gel. Finally, in a narrow velocity bracket about $`V_\text{c}`$, irregular stick-slip is observed. It corresponds to the alternation of pulses of the type described above and of shorter lived events nucleated “homogeneously” within the interface.

Experiments— The gel samples are made from a 5 wt % solution of gelatin in water, stirred for 35 minutes at 55 C, then poured into a parallelipedic mould of thickness $`10`$ mm, and kept at 5 C for 20 hours. After returning to room temperature, the block sides are cut to obtain the trapezoidal shape shown on figure 1. This ensures that sliding will occur at the gel$`/`$glass interface rather than along the upper driving plate. All experiments are performed at $`20^{}`$ C in a water saturated atmosphere. No measurable ageing of the samples occurs over the duration ($`3`$ hours) of an experiment. We measure for the low frequency shear modulus $`G=4`$ kPa. Moreover, we determined from dynamic light scattering the collective diffusion coefficient of the gelatin network Tanaka et al. (1973) $`D=\mathrm{1.8\; 10}^{11}`$ m2.s-1.

The flat free surface of the sample (area $`A=30\times 10`$ mm2) is brought to contact with a carefully cleaned float glass plate. Fine control of the parallelism of the approaching surfaces, together with the strong gel$`/`$glass adhesion and the large compliance of the gel block, ensure the homogeneity of the contact. The system is driven at a controlled velocity $`V`$ ranging from $`10\mu `$m$`/`$s to $`2`$ mm$`/`$s through a double cantilever spring much stiffer than the sample. The shear force $`F`$, and thus the average shear stress $`\sigma =F/A`$, is deduced from the spring elongation, measured by a capacitive displacement transducer. In addition, a stiff attachment is used to work at a constant sample thickness corresponding to zero external load on the non-moving system. All experiments consist of several runs of slid distance $`150`$ mm. The shear stress level is reproducible to better than 5%, except for the first run, which we discard since it corresponds to a systematically larger stress. The interfacial plane is observed with a CCD camera at a rate of 60 frames per second. Its motion can be observed thanks to the presence of tiny optical imperfections attached to the gel in the vicinity of its surface. This permits to measure interfacial slip with a resolution of $`20\mu `$m. Finally, sideways optical observation between crossed polarizers provides information about the deformation field intergrated across the sample.

When starting to load from rest at constant $`V`$, one first observes a linear rise of the average shear stress $`\sigma `$, corresponding to elastic deformation of the block. This stick phase is followed by a slip one, during which $`\sigma `$ drops. Following this transient stress peak, two dynamical regimes are observed, depending on $`V`$ : (i) at low velocities, slip stops, and periodic stick-slip sets up (Fig 2.a). As $`V`$ is increased, the stress tail during slip becomes longer (Fig 2.b). The first peak is systematically larger than the subsequent ones, indicating interfacial ageing at rest Baumberger et al. (2001). (ii) For $`V>V_\text{c}125\mu `$m$`/`$s, no resticking occurs any more, sliding becomes stationary (Fig 2.c). In this regime, $`\sigma (V)`$ (Fig.3) is measured to be velocity strengthening, of the shear-thinning type frequently observed for complex fluids.

Upon decreasing $`V`$, no hysteresis of the transition is observed. However, in a narrow velocity range below $`V_\text{c}`$, the above described stick-slip peaks are aperiodic and interspeded with irregular smaller events (see below). Such a mechanical behaviour seems incompatible with a one-degree of freedom dynamics. This points toward the need for improving upon the integrated information provided by $`\sigma `$. This is realized by extracting the spatio-temporal slip dynamics from the CCD recording of the interface image.

Figure 4 shows the light intensity along a single pixel line parallel to the driving direction (horizontal axis) as a function of time (vertical axis) in the stick-slip regime ($`V=80\mu `$m$`/`$s). At the end of the stick phase ($`t=t_0`$) sliding starts from the trailing edge and propagates in the driving direction. The locus of slope discontinuities reveals the propagation of the head of this “slip wave”. Its velocity $`V_{\text{tip}}`$ increases, as intuitively expected, as it comes close to the leading edge. During most of the traversal, $`V_{\text{tip}}8`$ mm$`/`$s. This value is found to be, within experimental precision, independent of the driving velocity.

We find that all trajectories can be superimposed by shifting into coincidence the points of discontinuity at which sliding starts. That is, the slip field is stationary in the frame of the moving tip. It is shown on Fig. 5, together with the slip velocity field. Three important qualitative features emerge : (i) the slip velocity exhibits a quasi divergence at the tip, suggestive of a fracture-like singularity. This is confirmed by the photoelastic visualization, which clearly reveals stress concentration in the tip region. It is worth noticing, at this stage, that no opening of the interfacial contact is observable, which leads us to think that we are dealing with a pure “frictional shear crack” (see discussion). (ii) Surprisingly, resticking occurs quasi-discontinously. Namely, on a time scale $`\mathrm{\Delta }t<1/60`$ s, the sliding velocity decreases from the finite value $`V_{\text{stop}}`$ to zero. Moreover, whatever the driving velocity in the stick-slip regime, we find that $`V_{\text{stop}}`$ is equal to the critical velocity $`V_\text{c}`$ which marks the transition to the regime of stationary block sliding.(iii) As seen on Fig. 5, for $`V<V_\text{c}`$ the slip field close behind the tip is quasi $`V`$-independent, the slip velocity decreasing asymptotically towards $`V_\text{c}`$. This is reached at a distance which increases with $`V`$. This increase of the pulse width accounts for the growth of the stick-slip period.

When $`V>V_\text{c}`$, the slip velocity behind the initial pulse head saturates at the driving velocity, and stationary motion sets in after the tip has emerged on the leading edge.

Finally, in a $`V`$-range of order $`5\mu `$m$`/`$s below $`V_\text{c}`$, where the pulse width has become larger than the sample one, a more complex behavior is observed (see Fig 6). Stationary sliding seemingly sets in. However, after a random time lapse, the interface resticks suddenly and practically all at once (no resticking front is observable). The average stress then starts rising again until a new pulse is nucleated at the trailing edge. Moreover, during the sliding phases between these large pulses, finite interfacial patches restick at random. Then, within these patches, slip nucleates and propagates in either direction. These “homogeneously nucleated” events are associated with the stress fluctuations interspeding the main peaks.

Discussion— So, it appears clearly that low-velocity sliding of the interface between our two elastically very dissimilar materials occurs via the “heterogeneous nucleation” of self-healing pulses. These sweep the contact at a quasi $`V`$-independent velocity $`V_{\text{tip}}`$ on the order of 8 mm$`/`$s, much slower than the (transverse) sound velocity $`c_\text{s}2`$ m$`/`$s. As was already noticed by Tanaka et al. Tanaka et al. (1999) when studying propagation of mode I fractures in a gel, this strongly subsonic value of $`V_{\text{tip}}`$ points towards the fact that the main relevant dissipative mechanism in our poroelastic medium is the so-called “slow Biot mode” i.e. collective diffusion of the gelatin network. Indeed, this mode, of dispersion law $`\omega _\text{D}=Dq^2`$, is expected to become most effective when the molecular depinning signal from the crack head of frequency $`\omega =V_{\text{tip}}/d`$ (with $`d`$ the gel mesh size), resonates with the diffusive mode at wavevector $`qd^1`$, i.e. when $`V_{\text{tip}}D/d`$. $`D`$ is related to the gel shear modulus $`G`$, skeleton Poisson ratio $`\nu `$ and mesh size $`d`$ by Tanaka et al. (1973):

$$D2G\frac{1\nu }{12\nu }\frac{d^2}{\eta }$$
(1)
with $`\eta `$ the viscosity of water. One can safely assume Tanaka et al. (1973) that $`\nu =0`$. From our measured values of $`D`$ and $`G`$, we then estimate $`d1.5`$ nm, so that $`D/d10`$ mm$`/`$s, in excellent agreement with the measured $`V_{\text{tip}}`$.

The fact that we observe, for driving velocities close to $`V_\text{c}`$, sudden global resticking events strongly suggests that $`V_\text{c}`$ is a threshold below which sliding becomes unstable down to wavelengths smaller than our space resolution. This inference is consistent with the quasi discontinuity of the slip velocity at the resticking pulse tail end in the periodic regime. In other words, we believe that, if stationary sliding could be stabilized at $`V<V_\text{c}`$ by e.g. working with a very thin, hence stiff, gel layer, sliding friction should become velocity weakening.

Such a behavior must necessarily be ascribed to the underlying dynamics of a structural “state” variable. In the present case, one can reasonably associate it with the density of polymer chains pinned to strong adhesion sites (e.g. silanols) on the glass surface which, according to Charitat and Joanny Charitat and Joanny (2000), should decrease with increasing slip velocity. Note that, in this frame of interpretation, adhesion persists while sliding, and opening of the network$`/`$glass contact is excluded—in contrast with Schallamach waves in rubber or with “brittle” pulses studied by Gerde and Marder Gerde and Marder (2001).

Our results point to the importance, for the dynamics and, possibly, the existence, of self-healing pulses in our system, of the details of the frictional dynamics. Whether or not the relation between self-healing and sliding instability might extend to a wider class of systems of course remains an open question. However, it is worth mentioning, in this perspective, the striking qualitative analogy between the global stick-slip dynamics of our system and that measured in some Surface Force Apparatus experiments Yoshizawa and Israelashvili (1993) involving thin confined layers of small molecules.

###### Acknowledgements.

We are indebted to L. Legrand for his help with the light scattering determination of $`D`$. We thank J.-F. Joanny, J.R. Rice, J.W. Rudnicky and K. Sekimoto for illuminating discussions.


text:
# X-ray Properties of Young Stellar Objects in OMC-2 and OMC-3 from the Chandra X-ray Observatory

## 1 INTRODUCTION

Stars are known to possess high energy phenomena well before they reach the main sequence (MS)111In this paper, we define terminologies as follows; “Protostars” are class 0 and class I objects. “Pre-main sequence (PMS) stars” and “T Tauri Stars (TTS)” are class II and class III objects. TTS comprise two subclasses, Classical T Tauri Stars (CTTS) and Weak-line T Tauri Stars (WTTS), corresponding to class II and class III, respectively. “Young Stellar Objects (YSO)” are class 0, I, II, and III sources collectively.. The Einstein observatory discovered that PMS stars (class III and class II stage with ages of $``$ 107 and $``$ 106 years after the on-set of gravitational collapse, respectively) are strong X-ray emitters (Feigelson & DeCampli, 1981; Montmerle et al., 1983). Successive observations with ASCA and ROSAT detected hundreds of X-ray samples of PMS stars with better spectral or spatial resolution. They revealed that the X-ray activities in these objects are quite common. Koyama et al. (1996) and Kamata et al. (1997) moved the start of X-ray activity forward to protostars. They detected hard X-rays from class I ($``$ 105 years) protostars with ASCA. Recently, Tsuboi et al. (2001) reported hard X-ray emission from two class 0 candidates in the Orion Molecular Cloud (OMC) using the Chandra X-ray Observatory (CXO). Now YSOs at virtually all the evolutionary phases — from class 0 to class III — are known to emit X-rays.

However, the X-ray emission mechanism has not been well understood. Imanishi, Koyama, & Tsuboi (2001) observed the $`\rho `$-Ophiuchi dark cloud with the CXO and found that the X-ray emitting regions of several sources are well beyond their stellar surface. This may be explained if the X-rays are due to star-disk magnetic interaction. Grosso et al. (2000) reported, on the other hand, that the X-ray emission does not depend on the existence of disks; no significant difference of the X-ray luminosity function is seen between ROSAT-detected class III objects (no disk) and class II objects (with disks). Montmerle et al. (2000) advocated that the reconnection of magnetic loops between stellar surface and disk is responsible for quasi-periodic flares and extremely high luminosity X-rays found in a protostar (YLW16) with ASCA (Tsuboi et al., 2000). Schulz et al. (2001) detected high temperature plasma with moderate luminosity and no rapid variability from YSOs in the Orion Nebula Cluster with the CXO. Hence they argued that the stellar surface-disk arcade model is unlikely but magnetically confined stellar plasma is a more likely origin for the X-ray activities, as was suggested by Skinner & Walter (1998) based on the ASCA observation of a CTTS (SU Aur). These arguments from previous studies may not be disagreements with each other, but are far from a unified picture of X-ray emission from YSOs.

Orion Molecular Cloud 2 and 3 (OMC-2 and OMC-3), located at a distance of $``$ 450 pc from us, are the best sites to study X-ray properties of YSOs at various evolutionary phases from class 0 through class III. X-rays from class 0 candidates have only been reported in OMC-3 (Tsuboi et al., 2001). Therefore, this cloud is the unique site where we actually provide X-ray samples from class 0 to class III. Moreover, the moderate angular size allows us to fully cover the clouds in the CXO/ACIS field of view (FOV).

Here, we report results of the CXO observation of the OMC-2 and OMC-3 star forming regions, with one of the deepest exposures of star forming regions. The purposes of this paper are 1) to conduct a coherent study of the X-ray source detection, time variability, and energy spectra, and to provide a catalog of one of the largest samples of X-ray sources in a star forming region, and 2) to investigate the X-ray properties of YSOs as a function of evolutionary phase inferred from the near infrared (NIR) data, and to compare them with the results of other star forming regions.

For the second purpose we use the 2MASS data, which is the deepest currently available in these regions. We conducted deeper infrared surveys on these clouds down to $``$ 18 mag in the J, H, and K-band. Those results will be presented in a separate paper.

## 2 OBSERVATION

The observation of OMC-2 and OMC-3 was carried out on 2000 January 1–2 using the CXO with a nominal exposure time of 89.2 ksec. We used four ACIS-I chips (I0, I1, I2, and I3) and one ACIS-S chip (S2) on the focal plane of the mirror system. All these detector chips utilize front-illuminated CCDs, which have sensitivity over a wide energy range (0.2–10.0 keV) with moderate energy resolution ($`\mathrm{\Delta }E`$ 200 eV at $`E=`$ 6 keV). Together with the optics, ACIS achieves sub-arcsec spatial resolution for on-axis sources, and a $`8\stackrel{}{\mathrm{.}}4\times 8\stackrel{}{\mathrm{.}}4`$ FOV for each CCD chip. Details on the satellite and the detectors are found in Weisskopf, O’dell, & van Speybroeck (1996) and Garmire et al. (2001), respectively.

Its spectroscopic capability in the hard energy band, together with the sub-arcsec spatial resolution, makes the CXO/ACIS an ideal instrument for the observation of star forming regions, where sources are heavily absorbed and crowded.

Figure 1 shows the FOV of our observation overlaid on the 1300mm intensity contour map (Chini et al., 1997). OMC-2 and OMC-3 are separated into south and north by the dotted line. Our observation fully covers both star forming clouds.

## 3 DATA REDUCTION AND ANALYSIS

### 3.1 Data Reduction

For the data reduction, we use the level 2 data “reprocessed” at the Chandra X-ray Center (CXC). This version improves the aspect solution and restores the degradation of energy gain and resolution due to the increase of the charge transfer inefficiency (CTI) of the ACIS222see http://asc.harvard.edu/udocs/reprocessing.html. For data manipulation, we use the Chandra Interactive Analysis of Observations (CIAO) version 2.1 and FTOOLS version 4.2.

In order to avoid the “spiking” problem reported by the CXC333see http://asc.harvard.edu/ciao/caveats/acis\_pi.html, we manually randomize the values of ENERGY and PI columns in the event file. After this procedure, we conduct the analysis in the following sections separately for the ACIS-I and ACIS-S data. Throughout this paper, we use X-ray photons in the 0.5–8.0 keV energy band. The photons of each source are accumulated from an elliptical region. The major and minor axes, and the rotation angles are derived from the wavdetect command.

### 3.2 Source Finding

We use wavdetect command with the significance criterion of $`1\times 10^5`$ and the wavelet scales ranging from 1 to 16 pixels in multiples of $`\sqrt{2}`$. We remove a few spurious sources through careful inspection by eye. We then detect 365 sources in the 0.5–8.0 keV band image. In order to pick up either soft (less absorbed) or hard (highly absorbed) sources more effectively, we also apply the same detection algorithm to the 0.5–2.0 keV (soft) and 2.0–8.0 keV (hard) band image. Then 17 and 16 new sources are found in the hard band and the soft band image, respectively. In total, we detect 398 X-ray sources in the ACIS-I and ACIS-S FOV. For each detected source, we calculate the X-ray photon count (0.5–8.0 keV) and the hardness ratio (Table 1).

For a systematic study, we divide all the X-ray sources into two groups, “bright” ($`>`$ 200 counts) and “faint” ($``$ 200 counts) sources, according to the photon counts inside the accumulation region. Out of 398 sources, 136 sources are “bright”, and 262 are “faint”. If the X-ray counts of the “bright” sources are less than 3 times the background counts in the photon accumulation region, we remove these sources and define the remaining 123 sources to be “bright2”. This screening is practically necessary to comprise a good sample for spectral and timing analyses. In particular, those at large off-axis angles have the background counts comparable to 200 due to a rather large accumulation area, hence the background has a large impact on the quality of the source spectrum and light curve.

### 3.3 Correlation with 2MASS Sources

For all the detected X-ray sources, we search for a NIR counterpart using the Point Source Catalog in the 2MASS Second Incremental Data Release444see http://www.ipac.caltech.edu/2mass/. It covers the whole ACIS-I and ACIS-S FOVs, and provides us with the NIR source positions and their photometric data in the J, H, and Ks-band down to 15.8, 15.1, and 14.3 mag, respectively.

In the ACIS-I and ACIS-S FOVs, we find 638 2MASS sources. First, we search for the 2MASS sources nearest to each CXO source within 3′′ radius. Second, we conversely search for the CXO source nearest to each 2MASS source within 3′′ radius. Thus we pick up the nearest CXO-2MASS pairs. The systematic position off-sets of the CXO sources from their 2MASS counterparts is found to be $`0\stackrel{}{\mathrm{.}}186`$ and $`0\stackrel{}{\mathrm{.}}200`$ in the direction of right ascension and declination. After correcting these systematic off-sets of the X-ray position, we re-apply the same procedure for the 2MASS counterpart search. Finally we find that 238 out of 398 ($``$ 60%) X-ray sources have a 2MASS counterpart. The distance between X-ray sources and their counterparts is found to be $``$ 0$`\stackrel{}{\mathrm{.}}`$5.

Together with the X-ray properties, the J–H and H–K colors of their 2MASS counterparts are given in Table 1. About 80% of the “bright” sources have a 2MASS counterpart (111 out of 136), while for the “faint” sources, the ratio is about 50% (127 out of 262).

### 3.4 Timing Analysis

We make the X-ray light curve (background is not subtracted) for the “bright2” sources and perform $`\chi ^2`$ fit with a constant flux assumption. We discriminate the time-variable sources by the significance criteria of 0.01, which are marked with $``$ in Table 2. About 40% (47 out of 123) of the sample sources are found to be time-variable. Most of them show flare-like variability, a fast rise and slow decay of the flux. Some light curves show multiple flares during the observation. A variety of features are seen in the light curves, and it is difficult to separate X-ray photons during the flare and at quiescence in a coherent manner. We therefore deal with them in the same way.

### 3.5 Spectral Analysis

We next perform spectral analysis of the “bright2” sources, the same data set for the timing analysis. We combine each energy bin so as to have more than 20 photons, then subtract a background spectrum. We use the sherpa program for the spectral fitting.

First we fit the spectrum of all the sample sources with a thin thermal plasma and a power-law model, both with absorption of hydrogen column density ($`N_\mathrm{H}`$). The free parameters of the former model are temperature ($`k_BT`$), metallicity ($`Z`$), and normalization, while the latter’s are photon index ($`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$) and normalization. The former model is accepted for 90 out of 123 sources with the upper probability of larger than 0.01 (99% confidence). The latter model is accepted for 64 sources, of which all except two are also accepted in the former model. On the contrary, both the models are rejected for the other 31 sources. Therefore, here and after, we use the results of the thin-thermal plasma model fittings (Table 2).

Second, for the 31 sources which reject both models, we try 2-component models, 1) a thin-thermal plasma $`+`$ power-law and 2) 2-temperature thin-thermal plasma model. Additional free parameters are $`k_BT`$ (or $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$) and normalization. Both models are acceptable for 8 and rejected for 6 sources out of 31 samples, while the latter model are accepted by other 15 sources. We therefore use the results of the two temperature thin-thermal plasma model fittings (Table 3).

## 4 DISCUSSION

### 4.1 The Nature of X-ray and NIR Sources

#### 4.1.1 The Nature of NIR Sources

Since some fraction of the 2MASS sources may be background or foreground sources, we first estimate the contribution of background galaxies in the following way. The number counts of galaxies per square degree per magnitude at a certain K-band (2.2µm) magnitude is given by

$$\frac{dN}{dK}=4000\times 10^{\alpha (K17)}$$
(1)
where $`\alpha =0.67`$ for 10 mag$`<K<`$ 17 mag (Tokunaga, 2000). Therefore, the number in the range of $`K_{min}`$ mag$`<K<`$ $`K_{max}`$ mag is

$$_{K_{min}}^{K_{max}}\frac{dN}{dK}𝑑K=\frac{4000}{\alpha \mathrm{log}10}\{10^{\alpha (K_{max}17)}10^{\alpha (K_{min}17)}\}.$$
(2)
The NIR counterparts of the CXO sources have a K-band flux of 6 mag $`<K_s<`$ 15 mag. We substitute $`K_{min}=6`$ and $`K_{max}=15`$ for simplicity, though equation (2) is valid only for $`K_{min}>`$10 mag. Still, this gives us a good estimate, because the second term of the right hand side of equation (2) is negligible compared to the first term in this case. Considering our FOV ($`8\stackrel{}{\mathrm{.}}4\times 8\stackrel{}{\mathrm{.}}4`$ for each chip), the estimated number of galaxies with 6 mag$`<K_s<`$ 15 mag is $``$12. This is only 1.9% of the 2MASS source number in our FOV. In addition, the background galaxies in this direction may suffer significant extinction due to molecular clouds, hence the contribution of extragalactic sources to our 2MASS sources should be even smaller than that estimated above.

We can also neglect the contribution of foreground sources to our 2MASS sample, because OMC-2 and OMC-3 lie off the galactic plane by $``$ 20 degrees. Thus, we can safely assume most of the NIR sources to be cloud members (YSOs and MS stars).

#### 4.1.2 The Nature of X-ray Sources

Krishnamurthi et al. (2001) observed the core of the Pleiades star cluster with the CXO for 36 ksec, and found that a significant fraction of X-ray sources are likely to be AGNs. We therefore try to discriminate cloud members from extragalactic sources using the X-ray hardness ratio.

In Figure 2, the histogram of the hardness ratio is given separately for X-ray sources with and without a NIR counterpart. The hardness ratio of the X-ray sources with a NIR counterpart has the peak at $`1.00.8`$, while those without a NIR counterpart has its peak at $`0.20.4`$. A power-law spectrum of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }=`$1.7 has the hardness ratio of $`0.10.4`$ when absorbed with the column density of $`N_\mathrm{H}`$$`=`$1–2$`\times 10^{22}`$cm-2, a typical value of the cloud column density. This corresponds to the peak of X-ray sources without a NIR counterpart. On the contrary, a thin-thermal spectrum with $`k_BT`$$`=1.2`$ keV, $`Z`$$`=`$0.20, and $`N_\mathrm{H}`$$`=10^{21}`$cm-2, typical values for class III and MS stars (see the following section), has the hardness ratio of $``$0.8. This corresponds to the peak of the histogram of X-ray sources with a NIR counterpart.

Therefore, X-ray sources with a NIR counterpart are mostly cloud members, consistent with the conclusion of the previous subsection. We thus focus on the X-ray sources with a NIR counterpart. X-ray sources without a NIR counterpart, on the other hand, are probably AGNs, which are not the main subject of this paper.

### 4.2 Classification

YSOs are observationally classified into class 0 through class III based on their spectral energy distribution (SED) from optical, NIR, mid infrared (MIR), and sub-mm bands (André & Montmerle, 1994). Since no systematic catalog for wavelengths longer than MIR is published in both of these clouds, we use the J–H/H–K color-color diagram of the 2MASS counterparts for the classification (Lada & Adams, 1992; Strom, Kepner, & Strom, 1995).

Out of the 123 “bright2” sources, 108 are detected either in the J, H, or Ks-band, and the remaining 15 are found in none of these bands. Figure 3 shows the J–H vs H–K plots of the detected X-ray sources.

Intrinsic colors for giants and dwarfs are taken from Tokunaga (2000) with colors transformed into the CIT system (Bessel & Brett, 1988), while CTTS locus is taken from Meyer, Calvet, & Hillenbrand (1997). We assume the slope of the reddening lines to be $`E(\text{J–H})/E(\text{H–K})=1.63`$ (Martin & Whittet, 1990). All the 2MASS colors are also translated into CIT color system with the transformation formula established by Carpenter (2001).

Based on the position in this diagram, we classify the sources into three groups — class I, class II, and class III $`+`$ MS — in the following way555Note that our classification based only on three NIR bands may be less complete compared with the conventional classification scheme. The number of class I and class II sources might be underestimated because the J-H/H-K diagram is not very sensitive to the NIR excess (Olofsson et al., 1999; Persi et al., 2000; Bontemps et al., 2001). On the other hand, the number of class I and class II sources might be overestimated because we can not discriminate mildly extinguished class III $`+`$ MS from them. Therefore it may be fair to use the terminology “class I-like” instead of “class I” etc. For simplicity, however, we use the latter terminology in this paper.. Class I and class II sources are characterized by H–K color excess over J–H color, originating from their disk emission, while class III and MS sources are not. Therefore, sources between the second and the third leftmost reddening lines, and above the CTTS locus are either class I or class II sources. Class I and class II sources in this region can be distinguished from each other by the amount of extinction, where class Is generally have higher extinction (typically J–H$`>`$1.5) than class IIs (Lada & Adams, 1992; Strom, Kepner, & Strom, 1995). Therefore, sources with J–H$`>`$1.5 are classified to be class I and J–H$``$ 1.5 are class II. Sources between the leftmost and the second leftmost reddening lines can be either class I, class II, class III or MS stars. In this region again, we classify sources based on their amount of extinction; sources with J–H$`>`$1.5 are class I, J–H$`>`$0.8 are class II, and J–H$``$0.8 are class III $`+`$ MS. These criteria are based on the fact that, in the Taurus-Auriga dark cloud complex, class II sources rarely have larger extinction than J–H$`>`$1.5 and class III sources rarely have larger extinction than J–H$`>`$0.8 (Strom, Kepner, & Strom, 1995). In addition, sources which lack 2MASS J and/or H-band detection (the upper limit of the H-band magnitude is given) are classified as class I, because all of them have larger extinction of H–K$`>`$1.2 mag.

Then, out of the 108 sources, we find 19 class I, 18 class II, and 61 class III $`+`$ MS sources. The other 10 are outside of the classification regions. The results are summarized in Table 2.

### 4.3 X-ray Properties of Different Classes

Based on the classification described in the previous section, we list the X-ray properties (absorption, metallicity, luminosity, and temperature) of each class in Table 4 and compare them with each other.

#### 4.3.1 Absorption

The X-ray absorption decreases as a YSO evolves from class I through class III $`+`$ MS. This is basically consistent with the fact that we classify these sources using their NIR extinction. J–H derived from the NIR photometry is a good indicator for the amount of material in solid-state, while $`N_\mathrm{H}`$ derived from X-ray spectroscopy represents the amount of gas. Therefore, $`N_\mathrm{H}`$ should go in proportion to J–H, and the ratio gives us the information of the dust-to-gas ratio in a star forming cloud.

For all the “bright2” sources with NIR data, we plot the relation between $`N_\mathrm{H}`$ and J–H (Figure 4). A clear correlation is found. The best-fit linear function is

$$N_\mathrm{H}/10^{22}\mathrm{cm}^2=(1.35\pm 0.18)\{(\text{J–H})(0.63\pm 0.05)\}\mathrm{mag}.$$
(3)
The J–H offset of 0.63$`\pm `$0.05 mag should be the averaged intrinsic color after removing the reddening, which corresponds to the spectral type K5–K7 in MS stars (Tokunaga, 2000). This indicates that low mass YSOs and MS stars are dominant in these clouds. The slope of 1.35$`\pm `$0.18 gives us information on the dust-to-gas ratio. Together with the relation between $`A_V`$ and J–H given in Meyer et al. (1997),

$$N_\mathrm{H}/10^{21}\mathrm{cm}^2=(1.49\pm 0.20)\times \mathrm{A}_\mathrm{V}\mathrm{mag}$$
(4)
is derived. The slope of 1.49$`\pm `$0.20 is smaller than those of the Galactic interstellar medium and the $`\rho `$-Ophiuchi dark cloud, and is similar to that of another star forming region, the Mon R2 cloud (Predehl & Schmitt, 1995; Imanishi et al., 2001; Kohno, Koyama, & Hamaguchi, 2001). Thus the dust-to-gas ratio may scatter from cloud to cloud, possibly with more massive star forming regions having larger dust-to-gas ratio.

#### 4.3.2 Metallicity

We determine the metallicity for many sample stars in a star forming region for the first time. A hint of a decreasing trend toward evolved classes is seen, although this depends on the way the samples are broken into class I, class II, and class III $`+`$ MS. The metallicity, when all classes are combined, is 0.45 (0.37–0.52) solar.

Padgett (1996) observed 30 G and K pre-main-sequence stars in the nearby star forming regions including Orion, and studied their photospheric abundances using the iron absorption lines in the optical band. All star forming regions are found to have the solar abundance.

The discrepancy between the coronal abundance and the photospheric abundance, which are derived from the X-ray observations and the optical observations respectively, is often seen in other samples Yamauchi et al. (1996); Imanishi et al. (2001).

#### 4.3.3 Luminosity and Temperature

The temperature ($`k_BT`$) and the luminosity ($`L_X`$) are plotted on Figure 5, separately for class I, class II, and class III $`+`$ MS. The temperatures of class I to class III $`+`$ MS sources are randomly distributed over a wide range of luminosity, but the mean temperatures of class I and class II sources are significantly higher ($`k_BT`$ $``$ 3.0 keV) than that of class III $`+`$ MS ($`k_BT`$ $``$ 1.2 keV). We may argue that there are two types of X-ray emission mechanisms; one exhibits higher temperature, and the other has lower temperature. The former dominates in less evolved YSOs, like class I and class II sources, while the latter gradually appears as YSOs evolve to class III $`+`$ MS. In this context, it is suggestive that most sources with two temperature components (Table 4) belong to class III $`+`$ MS. The higher temperature component of these sources has $``$ 2.3 keV on average similar to the 1-temperature sources of class I and class II, while the mean of the lower temperature component is $``$ 0.8 keV similar to the 1-temperature sources of class III $`+`$ MS. We hence suspect that the two component class III $`+`$ MS sources may be in the transition phase between higher-temperature-dominant and the lower-temperature-dominant stage.

#### 4.3.4 Time Variation

Class II sources have a slightly higher fraction of time-variable sources than other classes, though it is not statistically significant. When class I and class II are combined and are compared with class III $`+`$ MS, we see no significant difference in time-variation rate (in both groups, $``$ 40% are time-variable). Imanishi et al. (2001) also argues that no significant difference of the flare rate is seen among three classes in the $`\rho `$-Ophiuchi dark cloud. Whether time-variable activity is related to the higher-temperature or the lower-temperature-component is not clear in our data set.

## 5 SUMMARY

We observed OMC-2 and OMC-3 with the CXO/ACIS for $``$ 100 ksec. This is one of the deepest observations ever performed in star forming regions in the X-ray band. We detected $``$ 400 X-ray sources in our FOV. Coherent analyses on these sources derived the following results.

1. Imaging analysis is performed for all the detected sources, and their position, photon counts, and hardness ratio are derived. This is one of the largest catalogs of X-ray sources in a star forming region.
2. Correlations with the 2MASS sources are found using the 2MASS database. About 60% of the X-ray sources have a NIR counterpart.
3. Spectral and timing analysis are performed for “bright2” X-ray sources. A one temperature thin-thermal plasma model can explain most of the spectra. About 40% of the “bright2” sources are found to be time-variable.
4. Most of the X-ray sources with a NIR counterpart are likely cloud members, while those with no NIR counterpart are probably background AGNs.
5. We classify the cloud members to be class I, class II, and class III $`+`$ MS based on the J–H/H–K color-color diagram and conduct a systematic comparison on the X-ray properties, such as absorption, luminosity, temperature, and time-variation.
6. Class I and class II sources are found to have higher temperatures than class III $`+`$ MS. We thus propose that two types of X-ray emission mechanisms exist (higher temperature and lower temperature component). The higher temperature plasma appears in the earlier phase and lower temperature plasma appears as YSOs evolve. In the transition phase, possibly early class III, plasma emissions with different temperatures coexist.
7. The ratio of time-variable sources is nearly the same among different classes. Whether the time-variability is related to higher-temperature- or lower-temperature-plasma is still an open question.

The authors express their thanks to Dr. Yoshitomo Maeda for giving us invaluable information on the analysis of the ACIS data, especially on the source detection algorithm and detector calibrations. The authors also acknowledge the careful reading of the manuscript by Jun Yokogawa and Leisa Townsley. M.T. and M.G. are financially supported by the Japan Society for the Promotion of Science.