text:
# Star Cluster Simulations Including Stellar Evolution

## 1. Introduction: A Revolution in Cluster Modeling

Star clusters are remarkably clean realizations of the classical $`N`$-body problem. They are relatively isolated in space, consist of more or less coeval stars, and contain relatively little gas or dust. As such, they provide unique laboratories for the study of fundamental stellar dynamical processes—relaxation, mass segregation, core collapse, binary interactions, post-collapse evolution, and evaporation with and without the effects of external tidal fields. Globular clusters are perhaps the best examples of “clean” systems. They are indeed isolated, gas free, and largely separate from the rest of the Milky Way Galaxy (except for tidal effects), and stellar evolution is relatively unimportant in governing their present large-scale dynamics, although it may be critical in determining the appearance of individual cluster components.

Of course, this is an oversimplified picture. In reality, cluster evolution involves not just stellar dynamics but also stellar evolution and mass loss, binary evolution, stellar collisions and tidal interactions, not to mention time-dependent external influences such as molecular clouds, bulge and disk shocks, and the effects of cluster orbital evolution. Combined, this complex mixture of competitive, tightly coupled physical processes poses great difficulties to would-be modelers. Open clusters and the Arches and Quintuplet systems found in the Galactic nucleus are examples of such “dirty” systems (the term reflecting somewhat the prejudices of a dynamicist). Some are sites of ongoing star formation, gas dynamics is evident in others, many are still strongly influenced by stellar evolution, and almost all have relatively short lifetimes in the Galactic tidal field. Indeed, one could argue that the surviving globulars are very unusual, and they are now clean only because they have survived the competitive processes that have already destroyed 99 percent of their siblings. Thus we need to study dirty systems even to understand the clean ones observed today.

Studies of cluster dynamics came of age in the 1980s, when improved simulation techniques elucidated many of the basic evolutionary processes operating in stellar systems—core collapse, mass segregation, binary dynamics, and the large-scale effects of mass loss due to stellar evolution. However, for good theoretical and practical reasons, the work concentrated on problems consisting essentially of point-mass dynamics with the inclusion of a few additional well-defined effects of interest. Limited combinations of physical processes afforded better understanding of cluster dynamics, and limitations in simulation techniques—the approximations inherent in continuum codes and the sheer computational expense of $`N`$-body simulations—largely dictated the simulation agenda.

The 1990s saw the integration of many detailed physical processes into simulation codes. Mass loss in evolving cluster environments, binary dynamics in clusters, and eventually the introduction of both stellar and binary evolution into $`N`$-body and Monte-Carlo codes. At the same time, the advent of special-purpose GRAPE hardware has greatly increased the numbers of stars that can be followed by direct integration. The result is that realistic star-by-star simulations of open clusters and small globular clusters are now possible, and the prospects for expansion into larger globular clusters are good. Our simulations are still limited by our knowledge of detailed physics, cluster initial conditions, gas dynamics, and orbital evolution, but the state of the art today is clearly qualitatively different from the situation even five years ago.

In this paper I outline some recent advances in cluster simulation, with particular reference to the effects of stellar and binary physics. I first describe some basic dynamics and the effect of mass loss due to stellar evolution. I then turn to the simulation techniques now in use, and specifically to their incorporation of stellar and binary evolution. Finally I list some recent studies carried out using the new generation of $`N`$-body codes, and discuss a few issues that remain to be resolved.

## 2. Cluster Dynamics and the “Kitchen Sink”

### 2.1. Dynamical Evolution

An isolated cluster of mass $`M`$ consisting of non-evolving point stars comes into dynamical equilibrium on a crossing time scale $`t_D=(GM/R_{vir}^3)^{1/2}`$, where $`R_{vir}`$ is the cluster virial radius. It evolves thermally on a relaxation time scale $`t_R(N/8\mathrm{log}\mathrm{\Lambda })t_D`$, where $`N`$ is the number of stars in the system and $`\mathrm{\Lambda }0.1N`$ (Spitzer 1987, Giersz & Heggie 1996).

Heat conduction from the cluster core to the outer halo precipitates the phenomenon known as core collapse, in which the cluster’s central core shrinks to (formally) infinite density while the outer regions expand (Antonov 1962). The core-collapse time scale, for a cluster consisting of equal-mass stars, is $`t_{cc}15t_{R,h}`$ (Cohn 1979), where $`t_{R,h}`$ is the relaxation time at the half-mass radius (comparable to the virial radius in most cases). For our purposes, the most important effect of core collapse is the creation of a dense central core, leading to enhanced stellar and binary interactions.

Energy equipartition (dynamical friction) causes massive stars to segregate to the cluster center (Spitzer 1969). For a star of mass $`m`$ in a cluster of mean mass $`mm`$, the segregation time scale is $`t_{seg}t_Rm/m`$. With even a modest range in masses, mass segregation can speed up core collapse by a factor of 3–5 or more relative to the equal-mass figure (Inagaki 1985). In systems with realistic mass spectra and broad ranges in mass (0.1 to 100 solar masses is typical in very young star clusters), significant mass segregation can occur in as little as $`0.2t_{R,h}`$ (Portegies Zwart & McMillan 2002a). Since mass segregation leads to the creation of a dense central core of high-mass stars, with the attendant processes of binary formation and stellar interactions, mass segregation effectively is core collapse in these cases.

Core collapse continues until some mechanism can replace the energy lost by conduction from core to halo. Leading contenders include mass loss due to stellar evolution and collisions, which tend to unbind the cluster, and heating due to binary interactions. The dynamical effect of binaries is most simply expressed by “Heggie’s Law” (Heggie 1975)—the well-known statement that hard binaries (those having energies greater than the mean stellar kinetic energy, $`\frac{3}{2}kT`$) tend to become harder following interactions with other stars, while soft binaries tend to be destroyed. A population of primordial binaries can support the core at a few percent of the half-mass radius until the binaries are depleted by interactions or escape (Goodman & Hut 1989; McMillan & Hut 1994). Dynamical binary formation requires core collapse (or collapse of a massive subsystem) down to a few tens of stars. In either case, binaries heat the system at a roughly constant rate until they are destroyed by a collision or ejected from the system.

Cluster dynamical evolution is also strongly influenced by external (tidal) fields, which tend to strip the least bound, and often lowest mass, stars. Ultimately, tidal mass loss reverses core collapse by removing the confining cluster potential, leading to the possibility of a remnant core rich in binaries and/or massive stars if the cluster lifetime is sufficiently short (McMillan & Hut 1984; Portegies Zwart et al. 2002a). Typically, in a stationary tidal field corresponding to a cluster moving in a circular orbit around the Galactic center, the cluster mass goes roughly linearly to zero on a time scale of a few times the “tidal relaxation time” (essentially the above expression for $`t_R`$, but using the dynamical time at the tidal radius), the details depending on the cluster’s initial internal structure (Portegies Zwart et al. 2001a). Studies of time-dependent fields suggest that the effects of external tidal shocks may well be comparable to internal relaxation in determining cluster evolution (Gnedin & Ostriker 1997).

### 2.2. Stellar Evolution

Much useful information can be obtained by studying specific effects in isolation and, given the choice, most workers would probably prefer such an incremental approach. However, this is not possible, as there is little middle ground between models consisting of identical, non-evolving point masses and the so-called “kitchen sink” simulations in which all relevant physical effects are modeled in detail.111Paradoxically, the term refers to an expression indicating completeness in which everything but the kitchen sink is included.

The reason for this is not difficult to grasp. A cluster model consisting of identical point masses is not an accurate description of any real star cluster. Such a simple system has only one relevant parameter—the total number of stars, $`N`$. However, increasing the realism of the model by adding a spectrum of stellar masses necessarily introduces specific stellar physics into the calculation—a stellar mass function must be chosen, and the spatial distribution of each stellar species defined. Once this is done, it immediately becomes necessary also to include the effects of stellar evolution—stellar evolutionary time scales are often comparable to the mass segregation/core collapse times of the parent cluster, so the dynamical state of the cluster is tightly coupled to the state of the component stars. Alternatively, neglect of stellar evolution will lead to a core populated with unphysically massive stars, whose dynamics is unrepresentative of any real system. In addition, real star clusters contain large numbers of binary systems (e.g. Rubenstein 1997) and stellar evolution drives binary evolution, so this too must be incorporated if the simulation is to remain self-consistent. Binary evolution may lead to stellar mergers and the production of a veritable zoo of exotic objects (see Portegies Zwart et al. 2001b).

Thus, the seemingly innocuous improvement of including stellar masses actually leads to a complex mix of physical processes and an exceedingly difficult numerical problem. As tidal effects and stellar physics are included, it is unclear how well our insight extends from simple to complex systems. The interplay of physical processes demands a more comprehensive approach.

### 2.3. Dynamical Effects of Stellar Evolution

The importance of stellar evolution to cluster dynamics was made clear by Applegate (1986) in a semi-analytic study of stellar mass loss from an idealized dynamical system. The study revealed that, for sufficiently flat initial mass functions (i.e. enough mass in massive stars), the combination of mass segregation and mass loss was sufficient to unbind a cluster long before core collapse could occur. For stellar masses distributed as a power law, $`dN/dmm^\alpha `$ for $`0.35M_{}<m<4M_{}`$, Applegate found that the dividing line between core collapse and disruption lay at $`\alpha 2`$ (where the slope of the Salpeter mass function is $`\alpha =2.35`$).

These conclusions were refined and strengthened by Chernoff & Weinberg (1990), who carried out the first systematic survey of globular cluster survival in Galactic environment with the effects of stellar evolution included self-consistently into a dynamical model. They employed a Fokker–Planck approximation with a simplified “main-sequence to giant to remnant” description of stellar evolution and an approximate “absorbing-boundary” treatment of the Galactic tidal field. Their model clusters concentrated on initially unsegregated King (1966) models with dimensionless depths $`W_0=1,`$ 3, or 7 (corresponding to a range in cluster Galactocentric radii of 2–25 kpc for the cluster masses considered), with initial stellar masses in the range $`0.4M_{}m15M_{}`$, distributed as power-laws with $`\alpha =1.5,`$ 2.5, or 3.5. They found that all clusters with $`W_0=1`$ or $`\alpha =1.5`$ dissolved before core collapse, while all clusters with $`W_0=7`$ and $`\alpha >1.5`$ collapsed. For $`W_0=3`$, the dividing line between disruption and survival for a Hubble time lay at $`\alpha `$ somewhat greater than 2.5, and those clusters that did survive lost most of their mass by the present day.

The first systematic series of $`N`$-body calculations incorporating stellar evolution was carried out by Terlevich (1987) using Aarseth’s NBODY5 integrator (Aarseth 1985). A variety of power-law initial mass functions was considered, and some models were started out of dynamical equilibrium (an example of an initial condition inaccessible to most other modeling techniques). Computational limitations restricted the systems studied to $`<1000`$ stars, but the models clearly demonstrated the same processes of mass segregation, mass loss, and cluster dissolution seen in Applegate’s semi-analytic calculation and Chernoff & Weinberg’s Fokker–Planck simulations. Model lifetimes were in good general agreement with observed open clusters, and early termination of core collapse due to stellar evolution was evident.

As available computing power increased, it became possible to compare Fokker–Planck simulations directly with $`N`$-body calculations. The $`N`$-body studies by Fukushige and Heggie (1995) and Portegies Zwart et al. (1998) included more sophisticated treatments of stellar evolution and external tides, although they were still limited to the low-mass end of Chernoff & Weinberg’s study. Fukushige and Heggie chose initial model parameters (mass range, $`\alpha `$, and $`W_0`$) largely identical to those of Chernoff & Weinberg; the models of Portegies Zwart et al. used similar (King model) cluster initial profiles, but adopted a more realistic initial mass function and a more sophisticated treatment of stellar evolution. Overall, both studies found general qualitative agreement with the conclusions of Chernoff & Weinberg, although they disagreed in detail, particularly in cases where cluster disruption occurred rapidly (and the Fokker–Planck approximation is least applicable), when the $`N`$-body lifetimes exceeded the Fokker–Planck estimates by as much as an order of magnitude.

De la Fuente Marcos (1997) performed studies of the evolution of small, tidally limited open clusters having a variety of initial mass functions, with and without the inclusion of stellar (but not binary) evolution. All models started with a substantial fraction (1/3) of primordial binaries having energies in the $`1`$$`10kT`$ range. He found that the dissolution time scale of his models depended quite sensitively on the choice of IMF, and that the binary population shortly before dissolution could show characteristic features allowing remnants of rich and poor clusters to be distinguished observationally. It is unclear how these results extend to larger systems.

## 3. Realistic Cluster Simulations

Given that stellar mass loss is of crucial importance to cluster evolution, and the basic ingredients have been known for over a decade, one might reasonably wonder why it has taken so long for stellar and binary evolution to be fully integrated into dynamical simulations. The short answer is that the methods best equipped to handling the physics have until been recently been unable to follow sufficiently large numbers of stars, as I now discuss.

### 3.1. Simulation Methods

The author’s biases notwithstanding, a fairly convincing case can be made that $`N`$-body codes are particularly well suited to the inclusion of arbitrarily complex stellar (and other) physics. They make no simplifying assumptions about the geometry or physical state of the system under study, include all interactions to all orders, and can in principle be extended to incorporate any desired process. The price of this is computational expense. At least for open clusters, and possibly also for larger systems, it appears that direct $`N^2`$ force methods are necessary for accurate long-term (post-collapse) collisional calculations.

Tree codes (e.g. Barnes & Hut 1986) are a possible alternative with superior \[$`O(N\mathrm{log}N)`$\] scaling, but they introduce spatial and temporal correlations in interparticle forces, possibly causing spurious diffusion effects which may be important during the post-collapse phase. McMillan & Aarseth (1993) found that a tree code could successfully reproduce the main features of cluster core collapse, and specifically the collapse time scale, but their study did not probe the post-collapse regime. However, they found that trees are inherently poorly suited to systems with individual particle time steps and large dynamic ranges in space and time scales, leading to significant complexity in the implementation of their tree code. This latter consideration also applies to fast multipole methods (Greengard & Rokhlin 1987), which generally perform best in homogeneous systems having limited dynamic ranges.

Direct-summation codes received an enormous boost in the 1990s with the development of the GRAPE series of special-purpose computers (Makino et al. 1997), the reason for this conference and the subject of numerous contributions in these proceedings. Abandoning algorithmic sophistication in favor of raw parallel computing power, the GRAPE family of processors increase the size of $`N`$-body systems by perhaps an order of magnitude over what is feasible using conventional supercomputer technology. The advent of GRAPE has greatly alleviated the computational bottleneck in $`N`$-body simulations, making it possible to focus on the physics rather than the numerics, and today GRAPEs are at the heart of all detailed simulations of star clusters and dense stellar systems. The current state of the art in collisional $`N`$-body simulations is $`N10^5`$.

Two popular competitors to direct summation are the use of direct Fokker–Planck codes and gas-sphere methods. In the former, the effects of repeated stellar encounters are distilled into a set of phase-space diffusion coefficients and the evolution of the system is followed using the Fokker–Planck equation in phase space (Cohn 1979). The latter methods transform the collisional Boltzmann equation into a system of moment equations closely resembling those of stellar structure, with stellar interactions providing the means for heat to flow around the system (Bettwieser & Sugimoto 1984). Both approaches are much cheaper than $`N`$-body techniques. However, at least in their simplest forms, they are not well suited to full treatments of cluster evolution. They rapidly become complex, unwieldy, and of questionable statistical validity as new dimensions are introduced to accommodate stellar masses, binary interactions, stellar collisions, etc. In addition, they admit only approximate treatments of tidal fields and tidal stripping, although Takahashi and Portegies Zwart (1998) have demonstrated that the tidal mass-loss rates can be largely reconciled with detailed $`N`$-body results if proper care is exercised in applying the stripping criterion.

Monte-Carlo methods provide, depending on one’s point of view, an alternative means of integrating the Fokker–Planck equation or a more faithful realization of the probability distributions underlying it. Either way, they represent promising “middle ground” between $`N`$-body and continuum schemes, combining the ability to model large systems with treatments of many physical effects. Current codes include both “pure” Monte-Carlo methods (Joshi, Nave, & Rasio 2001, Giersz 2001) and “hybrid” approaches combining Monte-Carlo treatments of selected stellar species (binaries, compact remnants, etc.) with continuous descriptions of the rest of the system (Giersz & Spurzem 2000). As yet these schemes do not include detailed treatments of stellar and binary evolution, but those developments are anticipated within the next few years.

Thus—for now, at least—$`N`$-body methods seem to offer the best means of including detailed stellar physics in cluster simulations, despite their continuing limitations in system size. Larger simulations using Monte-Carlo methods are possible, and may include more detailed physical modeling soon, but such methods are still not well suited to systems characterized by large departures from spherical symmetry or dynamical equilibrium.

### 3.2. N-body Modeling

The Aarseth “NBODY” series of $`N`$-body integrators (NBODY1–6) and their offshoots (NBODY6++ and others) are widely known and quite thoroughly documented (see Aarseth 1999 and Hurley, these proceedings). I will concentrate here on describing the “Starlab” software suite (Portegies Zwart et al. 2001b) and some of its similarities and differences from the Aarseth codes. While written as an independent alternative to the NBODY series, Starlab shares many structural and algorithmic features with it—perhaps not surprising, since Sverre Aarseth has over the past three decades developed and refined many of the key elements of all $`N`$-body simulations. However, some significant differences exist too.

Starlab is a collection of modular software tools designed to simulate the evolution of stars and stellar systems and to analyze the resulting data. The package consists of a library of loosely coupled programs, sharing a common flexible data structure, which can be combined in arbitrarily complex ways to study the dynamics of binary and multiple star systems, star clusters and galactic nuclei. Central to Starlab is the kira integrator, whose key features include

* a fourth-order Hermite integrator (Makino & Aarseth 1992) using a block time step scheduling scheme (McMillan 1986)
* a tree-based data structure, with single stars and binary centers of mass forming the top-level nodes in the tree, replacing the simple arrays used in the NBODY codes
* use of GRAPE hardware for top-level nodes (when available)
* computation of all low-level (binary) motion relative to the center of mass
* homogeneous treatment of binaries and multiples of arbitrary complexity using a binary tree structure; the use of relative coordinates and unperturbed motion where appropriate obviates the need for the binary, triple and chain regularization schemes employed in the NBODY codes
* use of a self-consistent hierarchical unperturbed approximation for efficient treatment of isolated binaries and multiples
* an efficient treatment of lightly perturbed binaries, modeled on the “slow KS” formalism of Mikkola & Aarseth (1996)
* stellar tidal interactions and collisions
* comprehensive treatments of stellar and binary evolution

The package is described in considerably more detail, and is available for download, at http://manybody.org.

As in NBODY4, stellar evolution is incorporated into kira via look-up from precomputed tracks, interpolating in age and mass as described by Eggleton, Fitchett, & Tout (1989), and in metallicity following Hurley, Pols, & Tout (2000; see also Hurley, these proceedings). Stars and binaries are evolved in time at regular intervals or as needed, depending on individual circumstances (e.g. following a merger in a binary or a collision of unbound stars).

Binary evolution in kira follows the work of Portegies Zwart (1997), and includes internally consistent treatments of all relevant evolutionary phases. Detached binaries may experience tidal circularization (Zahn 1978), slow mass loss due to stellar winds, more rapid mass loss as a star becomes a white dwarf, or instantaneous mass loss in a supernova explosion (Hills 1983). The velocity “kick” that neutron stars, and possibly also black holes, receive at birth is taken from Hartman (1997). Angular momentum loss may occur through stellar winds, magnetic braking (Rappaport, Verbunt, & Joss 1983), or gravitational radiation (Peters & Mathews 1963). For semi-detached binaries, we include the possibility of tidal instability and a comprehensive treatment of stable and unstable mass transfer. Accretion disk formation around compact companions is also modeled. The structure of the package is such that evolutionary recipes can be updated and refined as theoretical insights improve, without necessitating major modifications to the rest of the program.

Cross-sections for, and the most probable outcomes of, stellar collisions not resulting from binary evolution are taken wherever possible from published simulations, mainly using smoothed-particle hydrodynamics (e.g. Lombardi, Rasio, & Shapiro 1996, Freitag & Benz 2000, Sills et al. 2001). Results in the literature tend to concentrate on collisions of main-sequence stars and selected encounters involving normal stars and specific compact objects of interest ($`0.5M_{}`$ white dwarfs, $`1.4M_{}`$ neutron stars, etc.). For other collisions, we attempt to interpolate between published results or choose the “closest” published calculation, or we simply assign effective radii to the stars involved (so approach within the sum of the effective radii implies merger).

These approximations are far from perfect, especially when one recognizes that encounters in simulations usually occur in bound systems, sometimes involving multiple stars, and thus rarely have orbital parameters similar to those adopted in published results (which typically assume parabolic orbits). One can envisage more sophisticated treatments, in which SPH or other simulations are performed on the fly as needed and the resulting object is followed back to thermal equilibrium using a stellar evolution code after re-integration into the $`N`$-body system. However, there are numerous technical difficulties with this approach, not the least of them being the problems of how to recognize automatically that an encounter is “over,” and how to characterize and evolve the merger product.

These issues are particularly critical in studies of runaway mergers, where one massive star grows by consuming other stars in the core of a young dense cluster (Portegies Zwart et al. 1999). Here, detailed collision cross sections, merger probabilities, the thermal evolution of the merger product, and the evolution of very massive stars may all play important roles in determining the final outcome. For now, we must simply try various parametrizations to assess the robustness of the result, but it is hoped that these approximations can be improved in future work.

Finally, we adopt a more or less agnostic attitude toward tidal capture (Fabian, Pringle, & Rees 1975; Press & Teukolsky 1977), the process of binary formation via tidal dissipation in an unbound close encounter, whose effectiveness as a means of forming close binaries remains controversial. Potential applications include the formation of LMXBs and CVs in the denser globular clusters (Verbunt & Hut 1987). However, the process requires orbital separations comparable to the radii of the stars involved, so the possibility of collisions between the (probably thermally expanded) stars places a lower limit on the allowed separation (McMillan, McDermott, & Taam 1987; Ray, Kembhavi, & Antia 1987). An upper limit is imposed by the possibility that the binary becomes unbound on subsequent periastron passages (Kochanek 1992). The circularization process is discussed in detail by Mardling (1995) and Mardling & Aarseth (2001), and their results are incorporated into NBODY4. In kira, the unknown stellar state following the first encounter is viewed as the primary factor limiting our knowledge of the process, and we generally simply increase the effective stellar collision radius, although we retain the option (usually switched off) of a more detailed treatment should models improve.

### 3.3. Some Applications

Rather than describing a few specific applications of the modeling techniques just described, I simply list here some recent examples and refer the reader to more detailed accounts elsewhere in these proceedings and in the literature.

Studies of open clusters range from simulations of the dynamics and appearance of small systems such as the Pleiades, Hyades, and Praesepe (Portegies Zwart et al. 2001b, 2002b; Starlab) to a detailed analysis of binaries and blue stragglers in M67 (Hurley, these proceedings; Hurley et al. 2001; NBODY4). Shara & Hurley (2002; see also Shara, these proceedings; NBODY4) have found that dynamical interactions in clusters containing primordial binaries can lead to a substantial population of white-dwarf binaries—greatly exceeding expectations based on binary evolution alone—with inspiral time scales less than a Hubble time. If these results can be scaled to globular clusters, they may imply an interesting new channel for the production of Type Ia supernovae.

Portegies Zwart et al (1999; Starlab) performed simulations of young clusters, modeling the evolution of R136 in the 30 Doradus region of the LMC. They found that, for sufficiently dense (but not unreasonably so) initial conditions, massive stars can segregate to the cluster center and undergo runaway merger, leading to the formation of stars having masses hundreds of times that of the Sun in less then a few million years. More recently, Johnson et al. (2001) have compared population-synthesis and dynamical simulations of the young star clusters NGC 1805 and 1818 in the LMC with HST observations of these systems.

Portegies Zwart et al. (2001a, 2002a; see also Portegies Zwart, these proceedings; Starlab) have performed a series of simulations of the lifetimes and visibility of Arches- and Quintuplet-like clusters near the Galactic center, concluding that the central regions of our Galaxy may harbor dozens of similar clusters below the threshold of visibility. Subsequent studies by Portegies Zwart & McMillan (2002) and McMillan & Portegies Zwart (2002) have followed both the inspiral of such clusters into the Galactic Center and the possible formation of intermediate-mass black holes following runaway mergers in their cores. Ebisuzaki et al. (2002; see also Ebisuzaki, these proceedings) have extended these ideas to the formation and subsequent inspiral of intermediate-mass black holes in M82 and other galaxies.

## 4. The Future

The state of the art in cluster simulations has made impressive strides, but many outstanding issues remain. I conclude by listing, in no particular order, some significant challenges to be addressed in the next few years.

### 4.1. Cluster Initial Conditions

All simulations necessarily make simplifying assumptions about the initial state of the cluster under study. They start with a specific choice of IMF (power-law, Scalo, Kroupa, etc.) usually based on observations of stars in the solar neighborhood. All stars are assumed to lie on the zero-age main sequence, the cluster is taken to be gas-free and in dynamical equilibrium (but see Kroupa, Aarseth, & Hurley 2001), the density profile takes on some simple standard form (e.g. Plummer, King, anisotropic King) and generally is applied to stars of all masses. Binary parameters are chosen from convenient (but poorly known) distributions, with binary components typically drawn randomly from the IMF and binary spatial densities following the master density profile of cluster stars.

Of course, most of these assumptions are incorrect.

* There is no reason to suppose that the local stellar mass function or binary population is representative of initial mass functions in young globular clusters (billions of years ago), or in dense massive systems forming today (see Kroupa 2001 for a thorough discussion).
* Stars of different masses do not all reach the zero-age main sequence simultaneously, so the births of the “coeval” stars in our models may easily span 100 Myr or more, longer than the cluster lifetime in some cases; protostellar disks may have large cross sections and might contribute significantly to collisional mergers.
* Many, if not most, young star clusters are rich in gas whose eventual expulsion will cause the cluster to expand, and perhaps dissolve. Thus, clusters are probably not in dynamical equilibrium at birth (or when stellar dynamics is typically “turned on”), and gas dynamics should be routinely incorporated into models of early cluster evolution.
* It is also possible that clusters are born mass segregated, with more massive stars forming in the densest regions of the parent cloud (see the discussions by Klessen and Whitworth, these proceedings), so the assumption of a universal density profile may not be warranted. In that case, the use of mass segregation as an indicator of dynamical evolution must also be reconsidered.

### 4.2. Better Treatments of Stellar Physics

As described above, look-up tables, semi-analytical recipes, and specific simulations now form the basis for the inclusion of stellar and binary evolution and collisions into cluster simulations. Can we do better? Might actual stellar evolution, SPH, even binary evolution codes be embedded in $`N`$-body and other integrators? Technically, such an interface would be quite feasible—for example, the internal structure of kira was designed with the inclusion of both stellar evolution and SPH in mind—although a clear formulation of the possible interactions between the various modules involved is critical.

The basic challenge of such an approach is to build a robust standalone module that can function reliably and reasonably no matter how unexpected or unreasonable the input might be. While numerous capable stellar evolution packages exist, none is intended to follow the evolution of an object from birth to death without user intervention at certain key stages. Nevertheless, such a self-contained program could probably be constructed, given a sufficiently motivated programmer. Experiments with Starlab indicate that SPH can also be incorporated, although this possibility has never been pursued to a final working product. Binary evolution appears much harder, as the physics is less well understood, and the prospect of robust automatic evolution seems remote.

If any of this turns out to be feasible, we should then ask if it is desirable. The obvious advantage is that we can follow in detail the evolution of any object, be it an original star or the result of a later merger, without the need for look-up tables or approximate “rejuvenation” schemes for locating a merger product in an existing array of precomputed models. On the other hand, the automatic module, in part by the very nature of the robustness needed for standalone use, may result in models of lower resolution than those underlying the look-up tables. In addition, one could argue that the ability to parametrize physical processes into recipes allows us the freedom to experiment with individual effects (much as Monte-Carlo methods do with dynamics) that perhaps could not be isolated within a more complete evolution treatment. Most probably the coming 2–3 years will see the development of hybrid methods combining look-up and automated computation of stellar structure as needed.

### 4.3. Scaling and Calibration

Even with GRAPE-6, it is still not feasible to model large globular clusters using $`N`$-body methods. Can we scale up smaller runs to tell us about larger systems? In the early 1990s, the hope was that studies of cluster evolution of steadily increasing size would lead to the development of simple scaling relations that would permit extrapolation of $`N`$-body results to larger values of $`N`$. Unfortunately, it now seems that there are too many “important” time scales for that to be possible: in addition to the dynamical and relaxation time scales (§2.1), cluster evolution also depends on the evolutionary time scales $`t_S`$ for individual stars, the time scales for collisions between stars, and the time scale on which stars are stripped by an external field. All of these scales depend on the choice of stellar mass function and other cluster parameters.

The ratio $`t_R/t_D`$ is set by the value of $`N`$. The basic approach used by researchers since Chernoff & Weinberg (1990) has been to try to preserve one of the ratios $`t_S/t_D`$ or $`t_S/t_R`$. However, Portegies Zwart et al. (1998) found that the scaling even from 4k to 16k is unreliable in presence of tides and stellar mass loss, whichever of these two ratios is held fixed. Variable scaling (Aarseth & Heggie 1998), in which one adjusts the conversion between stellar and dynamical time scales as the evolution proceeds and the system makes a transition from “dynamical” to “relaxation” scaling, may work in certain controlled situations, but it appears inadequate in the presence of primordial binaries, binary evolution, and the possibility of stellar collisions. The introduction of time-dependent external fields only makes matters worse. With scaling efforts currently in doubt, there seems no alternative to doing it the hard way, in which case realistic $`N`$-body models of million-body systems may have to await the arrival of the GRAPE-8.

Other methods, especially Monte-Carlo codes, have already reached the million-body mark (see Giersz 2001), and we can expect them to incorporate realistic stellar physics in due course, as already discussed. However, in light of the simplifying assumptions made by these methods, $`N`$-body calibration will be critical as the scope of the effort expands. With more than one independent version of each major type of code now available, direct comparison of different simulation methods (e.g. Heggie, these proceedings) becomes both feasible and essential.

### 4.4. Modeling Individual Systems

Finally, it is likely that the coming years will see increasing numbers of end-to-end simulations of specific systems, with the goal of making direct comparison with observations. Examples of such studies can be found in the recent simulations reported by Hurley et al. (2001), Portegies Zwart et al. (1999, 2001ab), and Johnson et al. (2001). While $`N`$-body studies of the larger globular clusters remain some years away, a number of intermediate-scale scale studies of systems containing $`1`$$`2\times 10^5`$ stars are now in progress, with stellar physics and realistic (i.e. non-circular) cluster orbits taken properly into account. As the realism and resolution of simulations increase, visualization techniques such as those described by by Levy (these proceedings) will grow in importance, as will the use of standardized data-archiving tools to analyze and distribute simulation results (Teuben, these proceedings).

#### Acknowledgments.

This work was supported in part by grants NAG5-9264 and NAG5-10775 from the NASA Astrophysics Theory Program, and by the Sloan Foundation. I also gratefully acknowledge the hospitality of Tokyo University and the American Museum of Natural History in New York.

## References

Aarseth, S. J. 1985, in Multiple Time Scales, eds. J. U. Brackbill & B. I. Cohen (New York: Academic)

Aarseth, S. J. 1999, PASP, 765, 1333

Aarseth, S. J. & Heggie, D. C. 1998, MNRAS, 297, 794

Antonov, V. A. 1962, Vestn. Leningr. Gros. Univ., 7, 135

Applegate, J. H. 1986, ApJ, 301, 132

Barnes, J., & Hut, P. 1986, Nature, 324, 446

Bettwieser, E., & Sugimoto, D. 1984, MNRAS, 208, 493

Chernoff, D. F., & Weinberg, M. D. 1989, ApJ, 351, 121

Cohn, H. N. 1979, ApJ, 234, 1036

De la Fuente Marcos, R. 1997, A&A, 322, 764

Ebisuzaki, T., Makino, J., Tsuru, T. G., Funato, Y., Portegies Zwart, S., Hut, P., McMillan, S., Matsushita, S., Matsumoto, H., & Kawabe, R. 2002, ApJ, 562, L19

Eggleton, P. P., Fitchet, M. J., & Tout, C. A. 1989, ApJ, 347, 998

Fabian, A. C., Pringle, J. E., & Rees, M. J. 1975, MNRAS, 192, 15p

Freitag, M., & Benz, W. 2000, in Dynamics of Star Clusters and the Milky Way (STAR2000), ed. S. Dieters, B. Fuchs, A. Just, R. Spurzem, & R. Wielsn (San Francisco: ASP), p. 428

Fukushige, T., & Heggie, D. C. 1995, MNRAS, 276, 206

Giersz, M., & Heggie, D. C. 1996, MNRAS, 279, 1037

Giersz, M., & Spurzem, R. 2000, MNRAS, 317, 581

Giersz, M. 2001, in STAR2000, p. 61

Gnedin, N. Y., & Ostriker, J. P. 1997, ApJ, 474, 223

Goodman, J., & Hut, P. 1989, Nature, 339, 40

Greengard, L. & Rokhlin, V. 1987, J. Comp. Phys., 73, 325

Hartman, J. W. 1997, A&A, 322, 127

Heggie, D. C. 1975, MNRAS, 173, 729

Hills, J. G. 1983, ApJ, 267, 322

Hurley, J. R., Pols, O. R., & Tout, C. A. 2000, MNRAS, 315, 543

Hurley, J. R., Tout, C. A., Aarseth, S. J., & Pols, O. R. 2001, MNRAS, 323, 630

Inagaki S. 1985, in IAU Symposium 113, Dynamics of Star Clusters, eds. J. Goodman and P. Hut (Dordrecht: Reidel)

Johnson, R. A., Beaulieu, S. F., Gilmore, G. F., Hurley, J., Santiago, B. X., Tanvir, N. R., & Elson, R. A. W. 2001, MNRAS, 324, 367

Joshi, K. J., Nave, C. P., & Rasio, F. A. 2001, ApJ, 550, 691

King, I. R. 1966, AJ, 71, 64

Kochanek, C. S. 1992, ApJ, 385, 604

Kroupa, P. 2001, MNRAS, 322, 231

Kroupa, P., Aarseth, S. J., & Hurley, J. R. 2001, MNRAS, 321, 699

Lombardi, J. C., Jr., Rasio, F. A., & Shapiro, S. L. 1996, ApJ, 468, 797

Makino, J., & Aarseth, S. J. 1992, PASJ, 44, 141

Makino, J., Taiji, M., Ebisuzaki, T., & Sugimoto, D. 1997, ApJ, 480, 432

Mardling, R. A. 1995, ApJ, 450, 722

Mardling, R. A., & Aarseth, S. J. 2001, MNRAS, 321, 398

McMillan, S. L. W. 1986, ApJ, 306, 552

McMillan, S. L. W., McDermott, P. N., & Taam, R. E. 1987, ApJ, 318, 261

McMillan, S. L. W., & Aarseth, S. J. 1993, ApJ, 414, 200

McMillan, S. L. W., & Hut, P. 1994, ApJ, 427, 793

McMillan, S. L. W., & Portegies Zwart, S. F. 2002, in preparation

Mikkola, S., & Aarseth, S. J. 1996, Celest. Mech., 64, 197

Peters, P. C., & Mathews, J. 1963, Phys. Rev. D, 131, 345

Portegies Zwart, S. F. 1997, Ph.D. Thesis, University of Amsterdam

Portegies Zwart, S. F., Hut, P., McMillan, S. L. W., & Verbunt, F. 1997, A&A, 328, 143

Portegies Zwart, S. F., Hut, P., Makino, J., & McMillan, S. L. W. 1998, A&A, 337, 363

Portegies Zwart, S. F., Makino, J., McMillan, S. L. W., & Hut, P. 1999, A&A, 348, 117

Portegies Zwart, S. F., Makino, J., McMillan, S. L. W., & Hut, P. 2001a, ApJ, 546, L101

Portegies Zwart, S. F., McMillan, S. L. W., Makino, J., & Hut, P. 2001b, MNRAS, 321, 199

Portegies Zwart, S. F., Makino, J., McMillan, S. L. W., & Hut, P. 2002a, ApJ, 565, 265

Portegies Zwart, S. F., McMillan, S. L. W., Makino, J., & Hut, P. 2002b, in preparation

Portegies Zwart, S. F. & McMillan, S. L. W. 2002, astro-ph/0201055

Press, W. H., & Teukolsky, S. A. 1977, ApJ, 213, 183

Rappaport, S., Verbunt, F., & Joss, P. 1983, ApJ, 275, 713

Ray, A., Kembhavi, A., & Antia, H. 1987, A&A, 184, 164

Rubenstein, E. P. 1997, PASP, 109, 933

Shara, M., & Hurley, J. 2002, astro-ph/0202179

Sills, A., Faber, J. A., Lombardi, J. C. Jr., Rasio, F. A., & Warren, A. R. 2001, ApJ, 548, 323

Spitzer, L., Jr. 1969, ApJ, 158, L139

Spitzer, L., Jr. 1987, Dynamical Evolution of Globular Clusters, Princeton University Press

Takahashi, K., & Portegies Zwart, S. 1998, ApJ, 503, L49

Terlevich, E. 1987, MNRAS, 224, 193

Verbunt, F., & Hut, P. 1987, in IAU Symposium 125, The Origin and Evolution of Neutron Stars, eds. D. J. Helfand & J. H. Huang (Dordrecht: Reidel)

Zahn, J. P. 1978, A&A, 67, 162


format: text

text:
# 1 Variation of Φ-measure as a function of the pion fraction (𝛽) from a DCC origin. The plot is obtained for an average pion multiplicity of 300.

$`\mathrm{\Phi }`$-measure and Disoriented chiral condensates

B. Mohanty

Institute of Physics, 751-005 Bhubaneswar, India

## Abstract

Fluctuations in the ratio of neutral to charged pions arising due to formation of disoriented chiral condensates (DCC) are discussed using the $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$-measure. The properties of the measure for various cases of DCC and non-DCC are discussed. The effect of detector efficiencies and other experimental factors are presented. Application of the $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$-measure to simulated data, within the context of a simple DCC model are also discussed.

In heavy-ion collisions, there is rapid expansion of collision debris along the longitudinal direction, leading to supercooling of the interior interaction region. This may result in the formation of domains of unconventionally oriented vacuum configurations as allowed by chiral symmetry called as disoriented chiral condensates (DCC) . Detection of these would provide important informations on the vacuum structure of the strong interaction and the nature of chiral phase transition. To have a system in which chiral symmetry is restored in the laboratory and to be able to study the above features is one of the main goals of ultra-relativistic heavy-ion collision experiments.

It has been predicted that DCC formation is associated with large event-by-event fluctuations in the neutral to charged pion ratio. The probability of the neutral pion fraction , $`f`$, is

$$P(f)=1/2\sqrt{f}\mathrm{where}f=N_{\pi ^0}/N_\pi ,$$
(1)
$`N_{\pi ^0}`$ and $`N_\pi `$ being the total number of neutral pions and the total number of pions respectively. The corresponding distribution for non-DCC events is a gaussian with $`<f>=1/3`$. It can easily be seen that for events with DCC there is a strong anti-correlation in the production of neutral to charged pions. Several theoretical calculations regarding various aspects of DCC exists in literature, starting form the probability of DCC production  to life time of DCC . Although there is an absence of a dynamical model of DCC, still the theoretical calculations are encouraging with respect to formation of DCC in heavy-ion collisions.

A typical experiment, looking for DCC would consist of two detectors, one to detect charged pions and other to detect photons from the decay of $`\pi ^0`$’s. They must have a common $`\eta `$-$`\varphi `$ overlap with $`\eta `$ coverage as much as possible. From the detected hit patterns one tries to see if there is any fluctuation in $`f`$, which would indicate presence of DCC-type fluctuations. Typical event structures would be similar to the anti-Centauro events reported by the JACEE collaboration . Results from other cosmic ray experiments have not ruled out the possibility of a DCC formation mechanism . As far has accelerator based experiments are concerned, several experiments have attempted to look for DCC by colliding hadrons and heavy-ions. Hadron-hadron collision experiments like UA1 , UA5 , D0, CDF  and MINIMAX , having $`\sqrt{s}`$ from $`540`$ GeV to $`1.8`$ TeV, have so far reported null results. Heavy-ion collision experiments like WA98  and NA49  at CERN SPS have so far put upper-limits on DCC production. In future several experiments have planned to look for this interesting phenomena at RHIC  and LHC .

Several techniques have been developed to look for DCC. These includes $`N_\gamma `$ vs. $`N_{ch}`$ correlation , “robust” variables  and those based on multi-resolution analysis techniques such as discrete wavelet transformations . It must be mentioned that it is important to have the right variable or method to look for fluctuations which are exotic. The importance of this in general has already been emphasized by some of the recent calculations . One of the important observables for looking at fluctuations is the $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$-measure . It has been developed specifically to remove the influence of trivial geometrical fluctuations and the effect of averaging over many particle sources. It’s utility in looking for fluctuations in transverse momentum, azimuthal fluctuations  and studying chemical fluctuations  has been shown. More recently the usefulness of $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ in studies of charge fluctuations have been demonstrated and it has been shown to have some advantages over other techniques . Its limitations have also been discussed . In this letter we try to see the usefulness of $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$-measure for looking at DCC-type fluctuations.

First we briefly recall some of the basic equations related to $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$-measure in general and then study its properties for a DCC-type fluctuation. The $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$-measure for a system of particles is defined as,

$$\mathrm{\Phi }\stackrel{\mathrm{def}}{=}\sqrt{\frac{<\mathrm{Z}^2>}{<\mathrm{N}>}}\sqrt{\overline{\mathrm{z}^2}}.$$
(2)
$`z`$ is the single-particle variable, $`z\stackrel{\mathrm{def}}{=}\mathrm{x}\overline{\mathrm{x}}`$, with $`\overline{x}`$ being the probability (averaged over events and particles) that a produced particle is of the sort of interest, say it is $`\pi ^0`$. One easily observes that $`\overline{z}=0`$. While $`Z`$ is the event variable, which is a multi-particle analog of $`z`$, defined as $`Z\stackrel{\mathrm{def}}{=}_{\mathrm{i}=1}^\mathrm{N}(\mathrm{x}_\mathrm{i}\overline{\mathrm{x}})`$, where the summation runs over particles from a given event. By construction $`<Z>=0`$, where $`<\mathrm{}>`$ represents averaging over events.

As discussed in Ref.  one can compute $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ for the system of particles of two sorts, $`a`$ and $`b`$, e.g. $`\pi ^0`$ and $`\pi ^\pm `$. $`x_i=1`$ when $`i`$th particle is of the $`a`$ type and $`x_i=0`$ otherwise. The inclusive average of $`x`$ and $`x^2`$ would then be given as

$$\overline{x}=\underset{x=0,1}{}xP_x=P_1,\overline{x^2}=\underset{x=0,1}{}x^2P_x=P_1,$$

where $`P_1`$ is the probability (averaged over particles and events) that a produced particle is of the $`a`$ sort. Thus,

$$P_1=\frac{<N_a>}{<N_a>+<N_b>},$$

with $`N_a`$ and $`N_b`$ being the numbers of particles $`a`$ and $`b`$, respectively, in a single event. One immediately finds that $`\overline{z}=0`$ while

$`\overline{z^2}=P_1P_1^2={\displaystyle \frac{<N_a><N_b>}{<N>^2}},`$ (3)
where $`N=N_a+N_b`$ is the multiplicity of all particles $`a`$ and $`b`$ in a single event.

As the event variable $`Z`$ is defined as $`N_a\overline{x}N`$, one gets

$`<Z>`$ $`=`$ $`<N_a>\overline{x}<N>=0,`$
$`<Z^2>`$ $`=`$ $`<N_a^2>2\overline{x}<N_aN>+\overline{x}^2<N^2>.`$
Which leads to

$$<Z^2><N>^2=<N_b>^2<N_a^2>+<N_a>^2<N_b^2>2<N_a><N_b><N_aN_b>,$$

then

$`{\displaystyle \frac{<Z^2>}{<N>}}={\displaystyle \frac{<N_b>^2}{<N>^3}}\left(<N_a^2><N_a>^2\right)`$ (4)
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{<N_a>^2}{<N>^3}}\left(<N_b^2><N_b>^2\right)`$
$`2{\displaystyle \frac{<N_a><N_b>}{<N>^3}}\left(<N_aN_b><N_a><N_b>\right).`$
The fluctuation measure $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ as given in Eqn. (2) is completely determined by Eqns. (3, 4). Now we identify $`N_a`$ as $`N_{\pi ^0}`$ and $`N_b`$ as $`N_{ch}=N_{\pi ^+}+N_\pi ^{}`$. If $`N_\pi =N_{\pi ^0}+N_{ch}`$ is the total pion, then we can write $`N_{\pi ^0}=fN_\pi `$ and $`N_{ch}=(1f)N_\pi `$. Where $`f`$ is the fraction of neutral pion out of total number of pions in a given event. With this we get,

$`\overline{z^2}=<f>(1<f>)`$ (5)
In order to calculate $`\frac{<Z^2>}{<N_\pi >}`$, we consider the following equations.

$`<\delta N_{\pi ^0}^2>=<f^2><\delta N_\pi ^2>+<N_\pi ^2><\delta f^2>`$ (6)
$`+2<N_\pi ><f><\delta N_\pi \delta f>`$
$`<\delta N_{ch}^2>=<(1f)^2><\delta N_\pi ^2>+<N_\pi ^2><\delta f^2>`$ (7)
$`2<N_\pi ><(1f)><\delta N\delta f>`$
$`<\delta N_{\pi ^0}\delta N_{ch}>=<f><(1f)><\delta N_\pi ^2><N_\pi ^2><\delta f^2>`$ (8)
$`<N_\pi ><f><\delta N_\pi \delta f>+<N_\pi ><(1f)><\delta N_\pi \delta f>`$
where, $`<\delta N>=N<N>`$ and $`<\delta N^2>=<N^2><N>^2`$.

Using Eqn. 6, Eqn. 7 and Eqn. 8 in Eqn. 4 one can easily get the expression for $`\frac{<Z^2>}{<N_\pi >}`$ as

$`{\displaystyle \frac{<Z^2>}{<N_\pi >}}=<N_\pi ><\delta f^2>`$ (9)
A small assumption is involved in the above derivation, that the fluctuations in $`N_\pi `$ is small and the term $`\frac{<\delta N_{\pi }^{}{}_{}{}^{2}>}{<N_\pi >}+\frac{<N_{\pi }^{}{}_{}{}^{2}>}{<N_\pi >}`$ $``$ $`N_\pi `$.

Using Eqn. 5 and Eqn. 9 in Eqn. 2, the $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$-measure can be defined as,

$`\mathrm{\Phi }=\sqrt{<N_\pi ><\delta f^2>}\sqrt{<f>(1<f>)}`$ (10)
Let us now consider its properties within three simple models of the multiplicity distribution.

Non-DCC case -  It is known from $`pp`$ experiments  that the produced pions have their charge states partitioned binomially with mean of $`f`$ at 1/3. The fluctuation in $`f`$ is inversely proportional to the total number of pions given by $`<\delta f^2>=<f>(1<f>)/N_\pi `$. Then one can easily see that,

$`\mathrm{\Phi }_{nonDCC}=0`$ (11)
Non-DCC but $`N_{\pi ^0}`$ and $`N_{ch}`$ are correlated -  If $`N_{\pi ^0}`$ and $`N_{ch}`$ are assumed to be correlated in such a way that there are no DCC-type fluctuations in the events. The neutral pion fraction, which is defined by the ratio $`N_{\pi ^0}/N_\pi `$, is assumed to be strictly independent of the event multiplicity. Then, $`f=\alpha `$, where $`\alpha `$ is a constant smaller than unity. Then $`<\delta f^2>=0`$ and $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$-measure is given as

$$\mathrm{\Phi }=\sqrt{\alpha (1\alpha )}.$$
(12)
DCC case -  For the DCC case, the probability distribution is given by Eqn. (1). Using this, one can easily see that $`<f>=1/3`$, as in the non-DCC case, while $`<\delta f^2>=4/45`$. So the $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$-measure is given as

$$\mathrm{\Phi }_{DCC}=\sqrt{<N_\pi >4/45}\sqrt{2/9}$$
(13)
For a typical case, where the total pion multiplicity, $`N_\pi `$, in the experiment is 300, we find for the DCC case the above $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$-measure is about 4.7.
This is a result where all the pions observed are of DCC origin. However a more realistic case  would be to include pions from non-DCC sources as well.

Background pions -  In a given event pions can originate both from a DCC source and from other non-DCC sources, even in a DCC event. In such a case the probability distribution for the neutral pion fraction, $`P(f)`$ , is given as,

$`P(f)={\displaystyle 𝑑f_{DCC}𝑑f_{nonDCC}P(f_{DCC})P(f_{nonDCC})}`$
$`\delta (f\beta f_{DCC}(1\beta )f_{nonDCC})`$ (14)
where $`\beta `$ corresponds to fraction of DCC pions out of a total number of pions $`N_\pi `$, produced in the event. $`f_{DCC}`$ and $`f_{nonDCC}`$ correspond to the neutral pion fraction for pions from DCC and non-DCC sources in the event, respectively. With the presence of non-DCC pions, one can see, the neutral pion fraction can no longer start from zero nor can reach the full value of unity, the range depending upon the fraction of non-DCC pions present in the sample. For various values of $`\beta `$, and total number of non-DCC pions, $`(1\beta )N_\pi `$, the above equation can be evaluated easily to obtain the final $`f`$ distribution from which one can get the resultant fluctuation, $`<\delta f^2>`$. Knowing $`<\delta f^2>`$ the $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$-measure can be easily estimated. The results obtained for an average total number of 300 pions in an event, are shown in Fig. 1. One can see that the value of $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$-measure, decreases with decrease in the fraction of DCC pions.

Multiple domains -  It is possible that in an event multiple domains of DCC are formed. In such a case the total probability distribution of the neutral pion fraction is the average value of $`P(f)`$ over all of the domains. This can be written as

$`P_m(f)={\displaystyle 𝑑f_1\mathrm{}𝑑f_m\delta (f\frac{f_1+\mathrm{}+f_m}{m})P_1(f_1)\mathrm{}P_m(f_m)}`$ (15)
where, $`m`$ is the number of domains. It can be shown that the resultant probability distribution approaches a gaussian centered at 1/3 with the standard deviation $``$ $`1/\sqrt{m}`$. This means $`<\delta f^2>`$ $`1/m`$, so that $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$, reduces as the number of domains increases in an event.

$$\mathrm{\Phi }_{multiDCC}\sqrt{<N_\pi >/m}\sqrt{2/9}$$
(16)
However, by carrying out this analysis by dividing the $`\eta \varphi `$ phase space to appropriate bins this effect can be reduced.

Neutral pion decay. - The neutral pions decay to photons ($`\pi ^0`$ $``$ $`2\gamma `$), before they reach the detectors. For such a case one can take $`N_{\pi ^0}=2N_\gamma `$. Then carrying out the analysis similar that done for arriving at Eqn. 10, one obtains

$`\mathrm{\Phi }_\gamma =\sqrt{4<N_\pi ><\delta f^2>}\sqrt{2<f>(1<f>)}`$ (17)
This shows decay introduces a finite value of $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ even for non-DCC, of the order of $`0.27`$

Detector effects - We know that the measurement of any observable in an experiment is affected by the efficiency of the detector. The effect of this can be seen easily through the following calculation. Consider the efficiency of detecting photons is $`ϵ_1`$ and that for charged pions is $`ϵ_2`$. Then we have, $`N_\gamma ^{exp}`$ = $`ϵ_1N_\gamma `$ and $`N_{ch}^{exp}`$ = $`ϵ_2N_{ch}`$. Photon multiplicity measurements are also affected by charged particle contamination. But true $`N_\gamma `$ can be obtained from the measured $`N_{\gamma \mathrm{l}ike}`$ using the relation

$$N_\gamma =\frac{p_\gamma }{ϵ_\gamma }N_{\gamma \mathrm{l}ike}$$
(18)
where, $`ϵ_\gamma `$ is the photon counting efficiency, $`p_\gamma `$ is the purity of the photon sample obtained from detector simulations. For convenience one can define $`\frac{p_\gamma }{ϵ_\gamma }`$ as $`ϵ_1`$. Then following the simple statistical analysis and assuming that the fluctuation in efficiencies are independent of multiplicity (for simplicity and may indeed be true if the analysis is carried out in narrow bins in centrality) and fluctuations in efficiencies are small, we find

$`\mathrm{\Phi }_{exp}=2ϵ_1ϵ_2\sqrt{<N_\pi ><\delta f^2>+<N_\pi ><f>^2<(1f)>^2E}`$ (19)
$`\sqrt{2ϵ_1ϵ_2<f>(1<f>)}`$
where, E = $`[\frac{<\delta ϵ_1^2>}{<ϵ_1>^2}+\frac{<\delta ϵ_2^2>}{<ϵ_2>^2}]`$.

Let us consider an experiment where the average total detected pion multiplicity is $`300`$. Taking typical values of relative fluctuation ($`\sigma /mean`$) in efficiencies, to be $`3\%`$ , we have $`<\delta ϵ_1>^2/<ϵ_1>^2`$ and $`<\delta ϵ_2>^2/<ϵ_2>^2`$ both to be about $`0.0009`$. Together they introduce an error $`0.0027`$. Then the term $`<N_\pi ><f>^2<(1f)>^2[\frac{<\delta ϵ_1^2>}{<ϵ_1>^2}+\frac{<\delta ϵ_2^2>}{<ϵ_2>^2}]`$ $``$ 0.04 which is very small compared to $`<N_\pi ><\delta f^2>`$ so may be for simplicity neglected. Hence $`\mathrm{\Phi }_{exp}`$ can be now written as,

$`\mathrm{\Phi }_{exp}=2ϵ_1ϵ_2\sqrt{<N_\pi ><\delta f^2>}\sqrt{2ϵ_1ϵ_2<f>(1<f>)}`$ (20)
So knowing the efficiency and purity of the detected multiplicity sample, one can estimate the value of $`\mathrm{\Phi }_{exp}`$.

Application to simulated data - We have discussed above many factors that possibly affect the detection of DCC-type fluctuations in data. Now lets apply the $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$-measure to simulated data and observe the sensitivity of the measure to detection of DCC-type fluctuations. Another advantage of applying it to simulated data, is that it can form a guidance for application of this to actual data in future. Simulated events were generated using VENUS 4.12  event generator with default parameters. 15K VENUS events with impact parameter less than $`3fm`$ was generated for this study. We have compared the observed effect to simulation results based on a simple DCC model . We assume the formation of a single DCC domain of a given size lying within the limited coverage ($`\eta `$ = 3-4, and full azimuthal) of a hypothetical detector system, consisting of a photon multiplicity detector and a charged particle multiplicity detector. In this model the output of the VENUS 4.12 event generator has been suitably modified to accommodate such a domain, characterized by percentage of pions being DCC type. To introduce DCC in a certain fraction of pions out of the total pions in an event, the charge of the pions is interchanged pairwise ($`\pi ^+\pi ^{}\pi ^0\pi ^0`$), according to the DCC probability as given by Eqn. (1). After allowing the $`\pi ^0`$s to decay, all the particles are passed through the realistic detector responses. The efficiency of charged particle detection was taken to be $`90\%\pm 5\%`$ . The photon counting efficiency and purity of photon sample was taken to be same and $`70\%\pm 5\%`$ . The average number of photons detected are $`372`$ and the average number of charged particles detected are $`456`$.

First we study the effect of number of pions being DCC-type. As discussed above and shown in Fig. 1, the value of $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ decreases as the number of non-DCC pions in a given event increases. Here we study the same in a realistic scenario using simulated data. We introduce DCC for different fractions of pions being DCC-type ($`\beta `$) in an event. This is done following the method discussed above. Then we calculate the quantity, $`\mathrm{\Phi }\mathrm{\Phi }_{normal}`$, Where $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ is the measure of fluctuation for a given DCC pion fraction ($`\beta `$) and $`\mathrm{\Phi }_{normal}`$ is the measure of fluctuation for normal or non-DCC type events (detector and decay effects included). The variation of $`\mathrm{\Phi }\mathrm{\Phi }_{normal}`$ as a function of $`\beta `$ is shown in Fig. 2. From the Fig. 2 we find that the fluctuations decreases with decrease with DCC pion fraction, which is consistent with the theoretical calculation shown in Fig. 1. The statistical error on $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ measure was calculated by taking different number of non-DCC type events (1000, 2000, $`\mathrm{}`$,10000) then finding the maximum variation in $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ value for these sets. It was calculated to be $`0.006`$. From this we find that such a typical experiment as discussed in the generating simulated data, will be able to detect DCC-type fluctuation, if the number of pions in an event being DCC-type is above $``$ $`3\%`$.

Secondly, we know that all events in a given heavy-ion reaction cannot be of DCC type. The effect of this has been studied for a fixed number of pions being DCC-type. For simplicity, we have assumed that for DCC type events the percentage of DCC-type pions out of the total number of pions is $`25\%`$. Then we have varied the number of events being DCC-type ($`\alpha `$) out of the total number of events in an given ensemble of events, to study the effect of DCC event fraction ($`\alpha `$) on $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$-measure. The results have been presented as $`\mathrm{\Phi }\mathrm{\Phi }_{normal}`$ vs. $`\alpha `$ and are shown in Fig. 3. We find that the value of $`\mathrm{\Phi }\mathrm{\Phi }_{normal}`$ decreases with decrease in $`\alpha `$, which is along expected lines. Keeping in mind the above mentioned statistical error on $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$-measure, we find that for DCC pion fraction ($`\beta `$) of 0.25, the measure is sensitive to more than $`1\%`$ of events being DCC-type out of a given ensemble of events. Similar calculations can be done for different values of $`\beta `$, but not discussed here, as the aim here is to demonstrate the utility of this widely used observable for DCC-type of studies.

Summary - We have discussed the utility and sensitivity of $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$-measure for looking at DCC-type fluctuations. We have studied the properties of $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$-measure for three different simple models of multiplicity distributions. Then we discussed the effect of various factors affecting the DCC-type fluctuations on $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$-measure. These include the existence of background or non-DCC type pions in addition to those from DCC origin in an event, possible existence of multiple domains of DCC, decay of neutral pion to photons and the detector effects like efficiency and purity. We have then discussed extensively the variation of $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ with fraction of pions being DCC type ($`\beta `$) and fraction of events being DCC type ($`\alpha `$), within the framework of a simple DCC model. From the study using simulated data from VENUS and incorporating realistic detector effects, we found that for a typical example, such a measure is sensitive to DCC-type fluctuations with $`\beta `$ greater than $`0.03`$ and for a $`\beta =0.25`$, it is sensitive to DCC-type fluctuation with $`\alpha `$ greater than $`0.01`$. With this study we have demonstrated that $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$-measure is a sensitive observable to look for DCC-type fluctuations, while it preserves its other properties, which has made it a powerful measure in event-by-event studies.

Acknowledgments
We would like to thank A.K. Dubey of Institute of Physics, for some useful discussions during the initial stages of this work.


text:
# After Acoustic Peaks: What’s Next in CMB?

## 1 CMB: At Present

The cosmic microwave background (CMB) is now a well known probe of the early universe. The temperature fluctuations in the CMB, especially the so-called acoustic peaks in the angular power spectrum of CMB anisotropies, capture the physics of primordial photon-baryon fluid undergoing oscillations in the potential wells of dark matter (Hu et al. 1997). The associated physics — involving the evolution of a single photon-baryon fluid under Compton scattering and gravity — are both simple and linear, and many aspects of it have been discussed in the literature since the early 1970s (Peebles & Yu 1970; Sunyave & Zel’dovich 1970). The gravitational redshift contribution at large angular scales (e.g., Sachs & Wolfe 1968) and the photon-diffusion damping at small angular scales (e.g., Silk 1968) complete this description.

By now, there are at least five independent detections of the first and second, and possibly the third, acoustic peak in the anisotropy power spectrum (Miller et al. 1999; de Bernardis et al. 2000; Hanay et al. 2000; Halverson et al. 2001). We summarize these results in figure 1. Given the variety of experiments that are either collecting data or reducing data that were recently collected, more detections that extend to higher peaks are soon expected. The NASA’s MAP mission222http://map.gsfc.nasa.gov is expected to provide a significant detection of the acoustic peak structure out to a multipole of $``$ 1000 and, in the long term, ESA’s Planck surveyor333http://astro.estec.esa.nl/Planck/, will extend this to a multipole of $``$ 2000 with better frequency coverage and polarization sensitivity.

A well known geometrical test related to the CMB temperature anisotropy power spectrum involves the location of the first acoustic peak in the multipolar space. The location depicts the projected sound horizon at the recombination and with increasing curvature, the location moves to smaller angular scales or higher $`l`$-values (Kamionkowski et al. 1994). The current data, with the first peak at a multipole of $``$ 200, strongly suggest a flat-universe (e.g., Jaffe et al. 2001). Additionally, alternative observations, such as the baryon fraction in galaxy clusters and details related to the large scale structure clustering, have provided strong evidence for a low matter content in the universe (about 30% to 40% of the critical density; see Turner 2001 for a summary). Note that this matter content is significantly above the baryon contribution; the latter amounts to be about 5% of the critical density based on calculations related to the big-bang nucleosynthesis and the observed abundance of light elements. The difference is the dark matter problem in astrophysics today.

Though one can effectively invent another form of an energy density in the universe which does not clump and does not behave as matter to preserve the geometrical flatness, there is a consistent picture from low redshift observations: the luminosity-distance diagram for type Ia supernovae out to a redshift of $``$ 1, and higher, indicates that the universe is accelerating (e.g., Perlmutter et al. 1999). This result implies the presence of an additional energy component in the form of the so-called cosmological constant or, more generally, in the form of a dark energy or a quintessence. This dark energy has a large negative pressure responsible for the anti-gravity behavior. A complete particle physics description of the dark energy still remains to be worked out. The physical nature of the dark energy presents the second important problem in astrophysics today.

In addition to these simple inductions on cosmology and detailed numerical estimates on parameters that define the modern cosmological models, one can also note few basic things. For example, the acoustic oscillations in the CMB anisotropy power spectrum require phases of all Fourier modes to be the same at the beginning. The inflation is expected to provide necessary adiabatic initial conditions while alternative models for structure formation, such as cosmic defects, are now strongly ruled out by the data as they predict, at most, just one broad peak in the anisotropy power spectrum due to no coherence. The shape of the first acoustic peak is also inconsistent with such alternative models and is more consistent with cold dark matter cosmologies favored by many today.

## 2 CMB: As a Probe of the Local Universe

In transit to us, CMB photons also encounter the large scale structure that defines the local universe; thus, several aspects of photon properties, such as the frequency or the direction of propagation, are affected. In the reionized epoch, variations are also imprinted when photons are scattered via electrons, moving with respect to the CMB. Though these secondary contributions to the CMB temperature are also generated by the same two processes that led to primary anisotropies, gravity and Compton-scattering (see, figure 2), there is one significant difference between the simple linear description involving acoustic oscillations and the late-time modifications. In the latter case, one deals with the complex and highly non-linear large scale structure. This involves detailed astrophysics at late times, such as the evolution of gas or pressure, or the formation of structures that define the local universe. Though these secondary effects are in some cases insignificant compared to primary fluctuations, they leave certain imprints in the anisotropy structure and induce higher order correlations. These signatures can then be used to extract basic properties of the large scale structure that led to these additional changes to CMB temperature. Now, we will summarize what these signatures are, and, how they can be used to study the local universe with CMB photons.

Integrated Sachs-Wolfe Effect: The differential redshift effect from photons climbing in and out of a time-varying gravitational potential along the line of sight is called the integrated Sachs-Wolfe (ISW; Sachs & Wolfe 1967) effect. The ISW effect is important for low matter density universes $`\mathrm{\Omega }_m<1`$, where the gravitational potentials decay at low redshift, and contributes anisotropies on and above the scale of the horizon at the time of decay. The non-linear contribution to the ISW effect comes from the large scale structure momentum density field. In Cooray (2002), we presented a model for the non-linear contribution based on a simple halo based description of the dark matter distribution (see, Cooray & Sheth 2002 for a review). A useful aspect of this non-linear effect is that it results from the transverse velocity of halos across the line of sight and leads to a dipolar temperature change aligned with the direction of motion. Though this dipolar temperature distribution towards known galaxy clusters allow this effect to be easily distinguished, a similar temperature pattern is also produced by the weak lensing effect involving the gradient of the cluster potential. Since the velocity direction on the sky need not be that of the large scale CMB gradient, which is lensed, one can effectively use a filtering scheme to separate out and extract the transverse velocity contribution from the lensing signature.

This non-linear transverse velocity contribution, however, produces fluctuations which are of order few $`\mu `$K when transverse velocities are of order 300 km sec-1. One can attempt to reach the required subarcminute resolution required for such an observations by outfitting the focal plane of the new 100m Green Bank Telescope with a bolometer array. Assuming a sensitivity of 200 $`\mu `$K$`\sqrt{\mathrm{sec}}`$ for each element, a 1000 element bolometer array can detect the effect, say towards the nearby Coma galaxy cluster, in $``$ 100 hours; this should be compared to the similar, or more, integration times that are currently taking to produce images of the thermal Sunyaev-Zel’dovich effect in galaxy clusters at the BIMA and OVRO arrays by Carlstrom et al. (1996) with 1-sigma noise contributions of few tens of $`\mu `$K. The ability to measure transverse velocities, which is generally not possible with other astrophysical methods such as spectroscopy, challenges improvements in the experimental front including novel observational techniques.

Weak Gravitational Lensing: Gravitational lensing of the photons by the intervening large-scale structure both redistributes power in multipole space and enhances it due to power in the density perturbations. The most effective structures for lensing lie half way between the surface of recombination and the observer in comoving angular diameter distance. In the fiducial $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$CDM cosmology, this is at $`z3.3`$, but the growth of structure skews this to somewhat lower redshifts. In general, the efficiency of lensing is described by a broad bell shaped function between the source and the observer, and thus, correlates well with a large number of tracers of the large scale structure from low to high redshifts.

Since the lensing effect involves the angular gradient of CMB photons and leaves the surface brightness unaffected, its signatures are at the second order in temperature. Effectively, lensing smooths the acoustic peak structure at large angular scales and moves photons to small scales. When the CMB gradient at small angular scales are lensed by foreground structures such as galaxy clusters, new anisotropies are generated at arcminute scales. For favorable cosmologies, the mean gradient is of order $``$ 15 $`\mu `$K arcmin-1 and with deflection angles or order 0.5 arcmin or so from massive clusters, the lensing effect results in temperature fluctuations of order $``$ 5 to 10 $`\mu `$K. One can effectively extract this lensing contribution, and the integrated dark matter density field responsible for the lensing effect, via quadratic statistics in the temperature and the polarization. This is best achieved with the divergence of the temperature weighted temperature gradient statistic of Hu (2001) and we show errors for a construction of convergence in figure 3(a). Since lensing has a distinct non-linear mode coupling behavior, it can produce a non-Gaussian signature in CMB data. The idea behind here is that the potentials which lensed CMB also contribute to first order temperature fluctuations from effects such as the ISW effect. These correlations are discussed in detail in Goldberg & Spergel (1999) and Cooray & Hu (2000).

Sunyaev-Zel’dovich Thermal Effect: At small angular scales the best known secondary contribution is the thermal Sunyaev-Zel’dovich (SZ; Sunyaev & Zel’dovich 1980) effect. The SZ effect arises from the inverse-Compton scattering of CMB photons by hot electrons along the line of sight. This effect has now been directly imaged toward massive galaxy clusters, where temperature of the scattering medium can reach as high as 10 keV producing temperature changes in the CMB of order 1 mK. Note that the effect is proportional to the temperature weighted electron density, or pressure in the large scale structure. Using a distribution of halos with gas in hydrostatic equilibrium, we can calculate the pressure clustering and project it along the line of sight to obtain the resulting angular power spectrum of temperature fluctuations (Cooray 2000; 2001a).

The general result from these halo based calculations, and confirmed in numerical simulations, is that the large scale structure pressure is heavily dominated by massive halos such as galaxy clusters. Thus, the SZ power strongly depends on the normalization of the power spectrum, such as the $`\sigma _8`$. The recent detection of excess power at small scales by the Cosmic Background Imager (CBI) is consistent with a high $`\sigma _8`$ ($``$ 1), but there is an additional effect involving the high non-Gaussianity. In figure 2(b), we show error bars on the SZ power spectrum from observations in a one square degree field. The smaller error bars assume Gaussian statistics, however, in reality, the non-Gaussian aspect of the SZ contribution increases errors by a factor of few at arcminute scales. This is equivalent to the statement that the SZ contribution varies significantly depending on whether one sees a massive cluster in the field of observations or not. Since massive clusters are rare, observations which are limited to small areas on the sky are biased. Any future interpretation of the SZ contribution should keep this increase in error, and any bias, in mind. To effectively obtain a fair sample of the universe, one has to survey 100 sqr. degrees or more instead of current surveys limited at most to few tens of square degrees.

In addition to these non-Gaussian aspects, the SZ thermal contribution should also be separated from the dominant primary fluctuations. Note that the SZ effect also bears a spectral signature that differs from other effects. The upscattering of photons moves them from low to high frequencies, with no effect at a frequency of $``$ 217 GHz. This leads to decrements at low frequencies and increments at high frequencies. An experiment such as the Planck surveyor with sensitivity beyond the peak of the spectrum can separate out the SZ contribution based on the spectral signature (Cooray et al. 2000). In figure 4, we summarize our results. This frequency separation is important since statistics related to the SZ effect can be studied separately uncontaminated by primary anisotropies and confusing foregrounds. For example, in Cooray (2001b), we introduced the CMB2-SZ power spectrum as a probe of the lensing-SZ correlation which involves the CMB and frequency cleaned SZ maps. This statistic can be used to directly estimate how pressure correlates with dark matter; in figure 3(b), we show expected errors for the Planck mission.

Linear Doppler Effect: The bulk flow of the electrons that scatter CMB photons leads to a Doppler effect. Its effect on the power spectrum peaks around the horizon at the scattering event projected on the sky today (see figure 2). On scales smaller than the horizon at scattering, the contributions are significantly canceled as photons scatter against the crests and troughs of the perturbation. As a result, the Doppler effect is moderately sensitive to how rapidly the universe reionizes since contributions from a sharp surface of reionization do not cancel.

Kinetic Sunyaev-Zel’dovich Effect: The Ostriker-Vishniac/kinetic SZ (kSZ) effect arises from the second-order modulation of the Doppler effect by density fluctuations (Ostriker & Vishniac 1986). Due to the density weighting, kSZ effect peaks at small scales and avoids cancellations associated with the linear effect; the linear effect can also be modulated via the fraction of ionized electrons (Aghanim et al. 1996). Due to the density modulation, the kSZ effect has a distinct non-Gaussian behavior (Cooray 2001a). The bulk velocities projected along the line of sight can be extracted with higher order correlations such as the SZ2-kSZ2 statistic of Cooray (2001a). For a given cluster, the temperature fluctuation is proportional to the line of sight peculiar velocity and when the SZ thermal contribution is removed with frequency information, the kinetic SZ effect should dominate. With multifrequency observations of galaxy clusters at high resolution, it should, in principle, be possible to extract the bulk motions of clusters from the relative contributions of the thermal and kinetic SZ effects. In addition to the peculiar motion, any coherent rotation of the cluster will produce a dipole-like temperature distribution toward clusters, especially when the rotational axes is aligned perpendicular to the line of sight (Cooray & Chen 2001). One can again use filtering techniques to extract this dipolar signature due to the gas distribution spanning a small extent when compared to the gradient of the potential that leads to effects such as lensing. The dipolar pattern involved here allows an extremely useful probe of the cluster rotation and the angular momentum of gas distribution within galaxy clusters.

Reionization via Polarization: In addition to temperature anisotropies at smaller scales, there is also a push to observer polarization at medium to larger scales. Though polarization contribution at the recombination peaks at $`l1000`$, the large scale polarization signal again allows a useful probe of the local universe and associated astrophysics. When the universe reionizes at low redshifts, currently believed to be some where between redshifts of 6 and 25, the temperature quadrupole rescatters at the new reionization scattering surface and produces a new contribution to the polarization. This effect leads to a new peak in the polarization anisotropy power spectra at very large angular scales and this peak scales as the square-root of the reionization redshift (Zaldarriaga 1997). In figure 5, we show the large angular scale polarization in the gradient, or the E,-mode. Since the signal is at large scales, one can easily construct a low resolution dedicated experiment for detection of the peak due to rescattering. We show expected errors for an experiment with 25% sky coverage, 100 $`\mu `$K$`\sqrt{\mathrm{sec}}`$ sensitivity and a beam of 2.5 degrees.

## 3 CMB: As a Probe of the Inflation

Though acoustic oscillations in the temperature anisotropies of CMB suggest an inflationary origin for primordial perturbations, it has been argued for a while that the smoking-gun signature for inflation would be the detection of a stochastic background of gravitational waves (e.g., Kamionkowski & Kosowsky 1999). These gravitational-waves produce a distinct signature in the CMB in the form of a contribution to the curl, or magnetic-like, component of the polarization (Kamionkowski et al. 1997; Seljak & Zaldarriaga 1997). Note that there is no contribution from the dominant scalar, or density-perturbation, contribution to these curl modes. In figure 6, we show the contribution from dominant scalar modes to the polarization in the gradient component and from gravitational-waves to the curl polarization. There is, however, another source of contribution to the curl component resulting from the fractional conversion of the gradient polarization via the weak gravitational lensing effect (Zaldarriaga & Seljak 1998). The lensing-induced curl introduces a noise from which gravitational waves must be distinguished in the CMB polarization. In figure 6, we summarize these contributions following Kesden et al. (2002; see, also, Knox & Song 2002).

As we discussed earlier, when considering the effect of lensing on temperature anisotropies, one can use the CMB data, both temperature and polarization, to extract lensing information. This is desirable since replacing the lensing effect on CMB with what one extract from galaxy shape measurements only leads to a partial accounting of the total effect (the difference in curves in figure 3). By mapping lensing deflection from CMB data with higher order correlations, the lensing effect on polarization can be corrected to reconstruct the intrinsic CMB polarization at the surface of last scatter. Now the only curl component would be that due to gravity waves. In figure 6, we show how well the lensing signal can be extracted. With no noise all-sky map, one can remove the lensing contribution with a noise contribution that is roughly an order of magnitude lower than the original confusion. As shown, if there is no instrumental-noise limitation, the sensitivity to gravity-wave signal is maximized by covering as much sky as possible and allow the accessibility to an inflaton potential of $`10^{15}`$ GeV.

Acknowledgments: The author thanks Wayne Hu and Marc Kamionkowski for collaborative work and helpful advice, and acknowledges support from the Sherman Fairchild foundation and the Department of Energy.