text:
# 𝑞-Hypergeometric proofs of polynomial analogues of the triple product identity, Lebesgue’s identity and Euler’s pentagonal number theorem

## 1. Introduction

In two recent papers, Alladi and Berkovich  and Berkovich and Garvan  proved the following three polynomial identities:

(1)
$$\begin{array}{c}\underset{n=0}{\overset{L}{}}\frac{z^n+z^{1+n}}{1+z}q^{T_n}\hfill \\ \hfill =\underset{i,j,k0}{}(1)^kz^{ij}q^{T_i+T_j+T_k}\left[\genfrac{}{}{0.0pt}{}{Li}{j}\right]\left[\genfrac{}{}{0.0pt}{}{Lj}{k}\right]\left[\genfrac{}{}{0.0pt}{}{Lk}{i}\right],\end{array}$$

(2)
$$\begin{array}{c}\underset{i,j0}{}(1)^jz^{2j}q^{T_i+T_j}\left[\genfrac{}{}{0.0pt}{}{Lj}{i}\right]\left[\genfrac{}{}{0.0pt}{}{i}{j}\right]\hfill \\ \hfill =\underset{i,j,k0}{}(1)^jz^{i+j}q^{T_i+T_j+T_k}\left[\genfrac{}{}{0.0pt}{}{Li}{j}\right]\left[\genfrac{}{}{0.0pt}{}{Lj}{k}\right]\left[\genfrac{}{}{0.0pt}{}{Lk}{i}\right]\end{array}$$

and

(3)
$$\underset{j=\mathrm{}}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}(1)^jq^{j(3j+1)/2}\left[\genfrac{}{}{0.0pt}{}{2Lj}{L+j}\right]=1.$$

Here $`T_n=n(n+1)/2`$ is a triangular number and $`\left[\genfrac{}{}{0.0pt}{}{n}{k}\right]`$ a $`q`$-binomial coefficient defined as

$$\left[\genfrac{}{}{0.0pt}{}{n}{k}\right]_q=\left[\genfrac{}{}{0.0pt}{}{n}{k}\right]=\frac{(q;q)_n}{(q;q)_k(q;q)_{nk}}$$

for $`0kn`$ and zero otherwise, with $`(a;q)_n=_{k=0}^{n1}(1aq^k)`$.

Identity (1), which is \[2, Eq. (1.12)\] and which was first stated in , is a polynomial analogue of Jacobi’s triple product identity. Identity (2), which is \[2, Eq. (1.15)\], is a polynomial analogue of Lebesgue’s identity and (3), which is \[3, Eq. (1.28)\], is a polynomial analogue of Euler’s pentagonal number theorem.

The first explicit proof of (1) was given by Berkovich and Riese  who showed that both sides satisfy a highly nontrivial fourth order recurrence relation. The proof of (1) given by Alladi and Berkovich uses transformation formulas for basic hypergeometric series. In particular they show that the right side of (1) can be transformed into the left side using, consecutively, Heine’s $`{}_{2}{}^{}\varphi _{1}^{}`$ transformation, the $`q`$-Chu–Vandermonde sum and the Sears–Carlitz transformation between $`{}_{3}{}^{}\varphi _{2}^{}`$ and $`{}_{5}{}^{}\varphi _{4}^{}`$ series. In this note we present a simple, one-page proof of (1) that only requires elementary summations and no transformations. As a bonus we find that (1) is the $`c=0`$ instance of

(4)
$$\begin{array}{c}\underset{n=L}{\overset{L}{}}\underset{m=L}{\overset{n}{}}(1)^{n+m}z^mq^{T_n}\frac{(cq;q)_{Lm}}{(cq;q)_{Ln}(cq;q)_{nm}}\hfill \\ \hfill =\underset{i,j,k0}{}(1)^kz^{ij}q^{T_i+T_j+T_k}\frac{1c}{1cq^j}\left[\genfrac{}{}{0.0pt}{}{Li}{j}\right]\left[\genfrac{}{}{0.0pt}{}{Lj}{k}\right]\left[\genfrac{}{}{0.0pt}{}{Lk}{i}\right]\end{array}$$

and of

(5)
$$\begin{array}{c}\underset{n=0}{\overset{L}{}}\underset{m=n}{\overset{n}{}}(1)^{n+m}z^mq^{T_n}\frac{(cq;q)_{L|m|}}{(cq;q)_{Ln}(cq;q)_{n|m|}}\hfill \\ \hfill =\underset{i,j,k0}{}(1)^kz^{ij}q^{T_i+T_j+T_k}\frac{1c}{1cq^{\mathrm{min}(i,j)}}\left[\genfrac{}{}{0.0pt}{}{Li}{j}\right]\left[\genfrac{}{}{0.0pt}{}{Lj}{k}\right]\left[\genfrac{}{}{0.0pt}{}{Lk}{i}\right].\end{array}$$

Letting $`c`$ tend to infinity and performing the sum over $`m`$ leads to the following two variants of (1):

$$\begin{array}{c}\underset{n=0}{\overset{2L}{}}\frac{(1)^nz^Lq^{n(2Ln+1)}+z^{Ln+1}}{q^n+z}q^{T_{Ln}}\hfill \\ \hfill =\underset{i,j,k0}{}(1)^kz^{ij}q^{T_i+T_j+T_kj}\left[\genfrac{}{}{0.0pt}{}{Li}{j}\right]\left[\genfrac{}{}{0.0pt}{}{Lj}{k}\right]\left[\genfrac{}{}{0.0pt}{}{Lk}{i}\right]\end{array}$$

and

$$\begin{array}{c}\underset{n=0}{\overset{L}{}}\left\{\frac{(1)^nq^{(n+1)(Ln)}+z^{n+1}}{q^{Ln}+z}+\frac{(1)^{n+1}q^{n(Ln)}+z^n}{1+zq^{Ln}}\right\}q^{T_n}\hfill \\ \hfill =\underset{i,j,k0}{}(1)^kz^{ij}q^{T_i+T_j+T_k\mathrm{min}(i,j)}\left[\genfrac{}{}{0.0pt}{}{Lk}{i}\right]\left[\genfrac{}{}{0.0pt}{}{Lj}{k}\right]\left[\genfrac{}{}{0.0pt}{}{Li}{j}\right].\end{array}$$

The proof of (2) as found by Alladi and Berkovich  uses combinatorial methods. They however ask for a $`q`$-hypergeometric proof of (2), or more precisely, for a $`q`$-hypergeometric proof of the closely related \[2, Eq. (6.14)\]

(6)
$$\begin{array}{c}\underset{j0}{}(z^2q^2;q^2)_jq^{\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{L2j}{2}\right)}\left[\genfrac{}{}{0.0pt}{}{L+1}{2j+1}\right]\hfill \\ \hfill =\underset{i,j,k0}{}(1)^jz^{i+j}q^{T_i+T_j+T_k}\left[\genfrac{}{}{0.0pt}{}{Li}{j}\right]\left[\genfrac{}{}{0.0pt}{}{Lj}{k}\right]\left[\genfrac{}{}{0.0pt}{}{Lk}{i}\right].\end{array}$$

Here we present such a $`q`$-hypergeometric proof of (2) and (6).

Identity (3) was discovered and proved by Berkovich and Garvan by finitizing Dyson’s proof of Euler’s identity using the rank of a partition. Again it is posed as a problem to find a $`q`$-hypergeometric proof. Here we show that (3) is a simple consequence of a cubic summation formula of . This same cubic sum may be applied to also yield

(7)
$$\underset{j=\mathrm{}}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}(1)^jq^{j(3j1)/2}\left[\genfrac{}{}{0.0pt}{}{2Lj+1}{L+j}\right]=1.$$

## 2. Proofs

In the following we adopt the notation of  for basic hypergeometric series, writing

$$\begin{array}{c}{}_{r+1}{}^{}\varphi _{r}^{}[\genfrac{}{}{0.0pt}{}{a_1,a_2,\mathrm{},a_{r+1}}{b_1,\mathrm{},b_r};q,z]={}_{r+1}{}^{}\varphi _{r}^{}(a_1,a_2,\mathrm{},a_{r+1};b_1,\mathrm{},b_r;q,z)\hfill \\ \hfill =\underset{k=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\frac{(a_1,a_2,\mathrm{},a_{r+1};q)_k}{(q,b_1,\mathrm{},b_r;q)_k}z^k,\end{array}$$

where $`(a_1,a_2,\mathrm{},a_k;q)_n=(a_1;q)_n\mathrm{}(a_k;q)_n`$. Moreover, whenever a basic hypergeometric identity occurs with a term $`q^n`$ and/or $`q^m`$, $`n`$ and $`m`$ are assumed to be nonnegative integers.

### 2.1. Proof of (1)

Using $`(1+z^{2n+1})/(1+z)=_{m=0}^{2n}(z)^m`$, interchanging sums and shifting $`nn+|m|`$, the left side of (1) can be written as

(8)
$$\text{LHS}(\text{1})=\underset{m=L}{\overset{L}{}}\underset{n=0}{\overset{L|m|}{}}(1)^nz^mq^{T_{n+|m|}}.$$

If on the right of (1) we eliminate $`i`$ in favour of $`m`$ by $`i=m+j`$ we can use (8) to equate coefficients of $`z^m`$ in (1). This leads to an identity, denoted $`()`$, which should hold for all $`m`$ and $`L`$ such that $`|m|L`$. After dividing both sides by $`q^{T_{|m|}}`$, $`()`$ can easily be seen to be the $`b=q^{|m|+1}`$ and $`N=L|m|`$ instance of

(9)
$$\underset{n=0}{\overset{N}{}}(1)^nb^nq^{\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{n}{2}\right)}=\underset{j=0}{\overset{N/2}{}}\underset{k=0}{\overset{Nj}{}}\frac{(1)^kb^jq^{j^2+T_k}(q,b;q)_{Nj}(b;q)_{Nk}}{(q,b;q)_j(q,b;q)_{Njk}(q;q)_k(q;q)_{N2j}}.$$

We now take the right-hand side and make the variable change $`kNjk`$. Then

$`\text{RHS}(\text{9})`$ $`={\displaystyle \underset{j=0}{\overset{N/2}{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{(1)^{Nj}b^jq^{j^2+T_{Nj}}(b;q)_{Nj}}{(q;q)_j(q;q)_{N2j}}}{}_{2}{}^{}\varphi _{1}^{}[{\displaystyle \genfrac{}{}{0.0pt}{}{q^{N+j},bq^j}{b}};q,1]`$
$`={\displaystyle \underset{j=0}{\overset{N/2}{}}}b^jq^{j^2}(bq^j;q)_{N2j}\left[{\displaystyle \genfrac{}{}{0.0pt}{}{Nj}{j}}\right]`$
$`={\displaystyle \underset{j=0}{\overset{N/2}{}}}{\displaystyle \underset{n=0}{\overset{N2j}{}}}(1)^nb^{j+n}q^{j(j+n)+\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{n}{2}\right)}\left[{\displaystyle \genfrac{}{}{0.0pt}{}{Nj}{j}}\right]\left[{\displaystyle \genfrac{}{}{0.0pt}{}{N2j}{n}}\right]`$
$`={\displaystyle \underset{n=0}{\overset{N}{}}}(1)^nb^nq^{\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{n}{2}\right)}\left[{\displaystyle \genfrac{}{}{0.0pt}{}{N}{n}}\right]{}_{2}{}^{}\varphi _{1}^{}[{\displaystyle \genfrac{}{}{0.0pt}{}{q^n,q^{N+n}}{q^N}};q,q]`$
$`={\displaystyle \underset{n=0}{\overset{N}{}}}(1)^nb^nq^{\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{n}{2}\right)}\left[{\displaystyle \genfrac{}{}{0.0pt}{}{N}{n}}\right]{\displaystyle \frac{(q^n;q)_n}{(q^N;q)_n}}q^{(Nn)n}=\text{LHS}(\text{9}).`$
Here the second equality follows from

(10)
$${}_{2}{}^{}\varphi _{1}^{}(a,q^n;aq^m;q,1)=\frac{(q^n;q)_n}{(aq^m;q)_m},$$

the third equality follows from the $`q`$-binomial theorem \[5, Eq. (II.4)\]

(11)
$${}_{1}{}^{}\varphi _{0}^{}(q^n;\text{};q,z)=(zq^n;q)_n,$$

the fourth equality follows from the shift $`nnj`$ followed by an interchange of sums, and the second-last equality follows from the $`q`$-Chu–Vandermonde sum \[5, Eq. (II.6)\]

(12)
$${}_{2}{}^{}\varphi _{1}^{}(a,q^n;c;q,q)=\frac{(c/a;q)_n}{(c;q)_n}a^n.$$

To prove (10), take Heine’s transformation \[5, Eq. (III.1)\]

$${}_{2}{}^{}\varphi _{1}^{}(a,b;c;q,z)=\frac{(a,bz;q)_{\mathrm{}}}{(c,z;q)_{\mathrm{}}}{}_{2}{}^{}\varphi _{1}^{}(c/a,z;bz;q,a),$$

specialize $`b=q^n`$ and $`c=aq^m`$ and use $`(aq^n;q)_{\mathrm{}}/(a;q)_{\mathrm{}}=(aq^n;q)_n`$. After letting $`z`$ tend to $`1`$ this yields (10).

By replacing the $`q`$-Chu–Vandermonde sum (12) with the more general $`q`$-Saalschütz sum \[5, Eq. (II.12)\], the above proof generalizes to yield

$$\begin{array}{c}\underset{n=0}{\overset{N}{}}(1)^nb^nq^{\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{n}{2}\right)}\frac{(cq;q)_N}{(cq;q)_n(cq;q)_{Nn}}\hfill \\ \hfill =\underset{j=0}{\overset{N/2}{}}\underset{k=0}{\overset{Nj}{}}\frac{(1)^kb^jq^{j^2+T_k}(c;q)_j(q,b;q)_{Nj}(b;q)_{Nk}}{(q,b,cq;q)_j(q,b;q)_{Njk}(q;q)_k(q;q)_{N2j}},\end{array}$$

which for $`c=0`$ reduces to (9). Taking $`b=q^{m+1}`$ ($`b=q^{|m|+1}`$) and $`N=Lm`$ ($`N=L|m|`$), multiplying both sides by $`b^m`$ and summing $`m`$ from $`L`$ to $`L`$ gives (4) ((5)).

### 2.2. Proof of (2) and (6)

First consider the left-hand side of (2). Shifting $`ii+j`$ this becomes

(13) $`\text{LHS}(\text{2})`$ $`={\displaystyle \underset{j=0}{\overset{L/2}{}}}(1)^jz^{2j}q^{j(j+1)}\left[{\displaystyle \genfrac{}{}{0.0pt}{}{Lj}{j}}\right]{}_{1}{}^{}\varphi _{0}^{}(q^{L+2j};\text{};q,q^{Lj+1})`$
$`={\displaystyle \underset{j=0}{\overset{L/2}{}}}(1)^jz^{2j}q^{j(j+1)}\left[{\displaystyle \genfrac{}{}{0.0pt}{}{Lj}{j}}\right]{\displaystyle \frac{(q;q)_{Lj}}{(q;q)_j}},`$
where the second equality follows from (11).

Next consider the right-hand side of (2). By reshuffling the terms that make up the three $`q`$-binomial coefficients, it readily follows that the summand $`S_{L;i,j,k}`$ on the right satisfies $`S_{L;i,j,k}=(1)^{i+j}S_{L;j,i,k}`$. Hence all contributions to the sum arising from $`i+j`$ being odd cancel, and we may add the restriction “$`i+j`$ even” to the sum. By replacing $`j2ji`$ we can then extract the coefficient of $`z^{2j}`$. Equating this with the coefficient of $`z^{2j}`$ arising from (13) results in the identity

(14)
$$\underset{i,k0}{}\frac{(1)^{ij}q^{(ij)^2+T_k}}{(q;q)_{L2j}}\left[\genfrac{}{}{0.0pt}{}{Li}{2ji}\right]\left[\genfrac{}{}{0.0pt}{}{L+i2j}{k}\right]\left[\genfrac{}{}{0.0pt}{}{Lk}{i}\right]=\left[\genfrac{}{}{0.0pt}{}{Lj}{j}\right]_{q^2}$$

for $`0jL/2`$. This is easily proved as follows:

$`\text{LHS}(\text{14})`$ $`=\left[{\displaystyle \genfrac{}{}{0.0pt}{}{L}{2j}}\right]{\displaystyle \underset{i=0}{\overset{2j}{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{(1)^{ij}q^{(ij)^2}}{(q;q)_{L2j}}}\left[{\displaystyle \genfrac{}{}{0.0pt}{}{2j}{i}}\right]{}_{2}{}^{}\varphi _{1}^{}[{\displaystyle \genfrac{}{}{0.0pt}{}{q^{L+i},q^{Li+2j}}{q^L}};q,q^{L2j+1}]`$
$`=\left[{\displaystyle \genfrac{}{}{0.0pt}{}{L}{2j}}\right]{\displaystyle \underset{i=0}{\overset{2j}{}}}(1)^{ij}q^{(ij)^2}\left[{\displaystyle \genfrac{}{}{0.0pt}{}{2j}{i}}\right]{}_{2}{}^{}\varphi _{1}^{}[{\displaystyle \genfrac{}{}{0.0pt}{}{q^i,q^{2j+i}}{q^L}};q,q]`$
$`=(1)^jq^{j^2}\left[{\displaystyle \genfrac{}{}{0.0pt}{}{L}{2j}}\right]{\displaystyle \underset{k=0}{\overset{j}{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{(q^{2j};q)_{2k}q^k}{(q,q^L;q)_k}}{\displaystyle \underset{i=0}{\overset{2j2k}{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{q^{T_i}(q^{2j+2k};q)_i}{(q;q)_i}}`$
$`=\left[{\displaystyle \genfrac{}{}{0.0pt}{}{L}{2j}}\right]{\displaystyle \underset{k=0}{\overset{j}{}}}(1)^kq^{k(2jk+1)}{\displaystyle \frac{(q^{2j};q)_{2k}(q;q^2)_{jk}}{(q,q^L;q)_k}}`$
$`=(q;q^2)_j\left[{\displaystyle \genfrac{}{}{0.0pt}{}{L}{2j}}\right]{}_{2}{}^{}\varphi _{1}^{}[{\displaystyle \genfrac{}{}{0.0pt}{}{q^j,q^j}{q^L}};q,q]`$
$`=(q;q^2)_j\left[{\displaystyle \genfrac{}{}{0.0pt}{}{L}{2j}}\right]{\displaystyle \frac{(q^{L+j};q)_j}{(q^L;q)_j}}(1)^jq^{j^2}=\text{RHS}(\text{14}).`$
Here the second equality follows from Heine’s transformation \[5, Eq. (III.3)\]

$${}_{2}{}^{}\varphi _{1}^{}(a,b;c;q,z)=\frac{(abz/c;q)_{\mathrm{}}}{(z;q)_{\mathrm{}}}{}_{2}{}^{}\varphi _{1}^{}(c/a,c/b;c;q,abz/c),$$

the third equality follows from an interchange sums and the shift $`ii+k`$, the fourth equality follows from

(15)
$$\underset{i=0}{\overset{2n}{}}\frac{q^{T_i}(q^{2n};q)_i}{(q;q)_i}=(1)^nq^{n^2}(q;q^2)_n$$

and the second-last equality follows from (12). To prove (15), take \[5, Excer. 2.6\]

$${}_{4}{}^{}\varphi _{3}^{}[\genfrac{}{}{0.0pt}{}{q^n,b,c,q^{1n}/bc}{q^{1n}/b,q^{1n}/c,bc};q,q]=\{\begin{array}{cc}\frac{(q,b^2,c^2,q^2)_{n/2}(bc;q)_n}{(b,c,q)_n(b^2c^2;q^2)_{n/2}}\hfill & n\text{ even}\hfill \\ 0\hfill & n\text{ odd},\hfill \end{array}$$

replace $`n2n`$ and let $`b`$ and $`c`$ tend to infinity.

To now also prove (6) we only need to show its left-hand side equals the left-hand side of (2). To achieve this we expand $`(z^2q^2;q^2)_j`$ using (11), expressing the left side of (6) as a double sum over $`j`$ and $`k`$. Interchanging the order of these sums and shifting $`jj+k`$ leads to

$$\begin{array}{c}\text{LHS}(\text{6})=\underset{k=0}{\overset{L/2}{}}(1)^kz^{2k}q^{k(k+1)+\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{L2k}{2}\right)}\left[\genfrac{}{}{0.0pt}{}{L+1}{2k+1}\right]\hfill \\ \hfill \times {}_{2}{}^{}\varphi _{1}^{}[\genfrac{}{}{0.0pt}{}{q^{L+2k},q^{1L+2k}}{q^{2k+3}};q^2,q^2].\end{array}$$

The $`{}_{2}{}^{}\varphi _{1}^{}`$ can be evaluated by (12) with $`n=L/2k`$ when $`L`$ is even and $`n=(L1)/2k`$ when $`L`$ is odd. Specifically, if we set $`L=2N+\sigma `$ with $`\sigma \{0,1\}`$ then the above $`{}_{2}{}^{}\varphi _{1}^{}`$ yields

$$\frac{(q^{2N+2\sigma +2};q^2)_{Nk}}{(q^{2k+3};q^2)_{Nk}}q^{\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{L2k}{2}\right)}=\frac{(q^2;q^2)_{Lk}(q;q)_{2k+1}}{(q;q)_{L+1}(q^2;q^2)_k}q^{\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{L2k}{2}\right)},$$

which is independent of the parity of $`L`$. Hence

$$\text{LHS}(\text{6})=\underset{k=0}{\overset{L/2}{}}(1)^kz^{2k}q^{k(k+1)}\frac{(q^2;q^2)_{Lk}}{(q^2;q^2)_k(q;q)_{L2k}}.$$

Since this is identical to the expression for the left-hand side of (2) found in (13) we are done.

### 2.3. Proof of (3) and (7)

In \[6, Cor. 4.13\] we proved (an elliptic analogue of) the cubic summation

$$\begin{array}{c}\underset{k=0}{\overset{n/2}{}}\frac{1aq^{4k}}{1a}\frac{(a,aq^{n+1};q^3)_k}{(q,q^n;q)_k}\frac{(q^n;q)_{2k}}{(aq^{n+1};q)_{2k}}\frac{(c,d;q)_k}{(aq^3/c,aq^3/d;q^3)_k}q^k\hfill \\ \hfill =\{\begin{array}{cc}\frac{(aq^3,q^{2n}/c,q^{2n}/d;q^3)_{n/3}}{(aq^3/c,aq^3/d,q^{2n}/cd;q^3)_{n/3}}\hfill & n2(mod3)\hfill \\ 0\hfill & n2(mod3)\hfill \end{array}\end{array}$$

for $`cd=aq^{n+1}`$. Replacing $`aa^2`$ followed by $`cac`$ and $`dad`$, and then letting $`a`$ tend to zero yields

$$\underset{k=0}{\overset{n/2}{}}\frac{(q^n;q)_{2k}}{(q,q^n;q)_k}q^k=\{\begin{array}{cc}(1)^{n/3}q^{n(n1)/6}\hfill & n2(mod3)\hfill \\ 0\hfill & n2(mod3).\hfill \end{array}$$

Taking $`n=3L`$, replacing $`kj+L`$ and making some simplifications gives (3). In much the same way does $`n=3L+1`$ lead to (7). Making the same replacements for $`a,b`$ and $`c`$ but letting $`a`$ tend to infinity instead of zero results in

$$\underset{k=0}{\overset{n/2}{}}(1)^kq^{\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{k}{2}\right)}\left[\genfrac{}{}{0.0pt}{}{nk}{k}\right]=\{\begin{array}{cc}(1)^{n/3}q^{n(n1)/6}\hfill & n2(mod3)\hfill \\ 0\hfill & n2(mod3).\hfill \end{array}$$


format: text

text:
# Nonstandard entropy production in the standard map

## 1 Acknowledgments

We acknowledge E.G.D. Cohen for stressing our attention on Einstein’s 1910 paper. We have benefitted from partial support by PRONEX, CNPq, CAPES and FAPERJ (Brazilian agencies).


text:
# 1 Introduction

## 1 Introduction

At the energies of modern lepton-hadron and hadron-hadron colliders, the interaction dynamics is governed by the properties of parton distributions in the small $`x`$ region. This domain is characterized by the double inequality $`s\mu ^2\mathrm{\Lambda }^2`$, which shows that the typical parton interaction scale $`\mu `$ is much higher than the QCD parameter $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$, but is much lower than the total c.m.s. energy $`\sqrt{s}`$. The situation is therefore classified as “semi-hard”. In such a case, the perturbative QCD expansions in $`\alpha _s`$ may contain large coefficients $`𝒪\left[\mathrm{log}(s/\mu ^2)\right]=𝒪\left[\mathrm{log}(1/x)\right]`$ which compensate the smallness of the coupling constant $`\alpha _s(\mu ^2/\mathrm{\Lambda }^2)`$. The resummation  of the terms $`\left[\mathrm{log}(1/x)\alpha _s\right]^n`$ results in the so called unintegrated parton distribution $`(x,k_t^2)`$, which determines the probability to find a parton carrying the longitudinal momentum fraction $`x`$ and transverse momentum $`k_t`$. If the terms $`\left[\mathrm{log}(\mu ^2/\mathrm{\Lambda }^2)\alpha _s\right]^n`$ and $`\left[\mathrm{log}(\mu ^2/\mathrm{\Lambda }^2)\mathrm{log}(1/x)\alpha _s\right]^n`$ are also resummed, then the unintegrated parton distribution depends also on the probing scale $`\mu `$, and will be labeled as $`𝒜(x,k_t^2,\mu ^2)`$. That generalizes the factorization of the hadronic matrix elements beyond the collinear approximation (hereafter this generalized factorization will be referred to as “$`k_t`$ factorization” ). The unintegrated parton distributions obey certain evolution equations (e.g., BFKL  or CCFM ) and are related to the conventional DGLAP  densities once the $`k_t`$ dependence is integrated out. Nowadays, the significance of the $`k_t`$ factorization (semi-hard) approach becomes more and more commonly recognized. Its applications to a variety of photo-, lepto- and hadro-production processes are widely discussed in the literature . Remarkable agreement is found between the data and the theoretical calculations regarding photo-  and electro-production  of $`D^{}`$ mesons, and of forward jets , as well as for specific kinematic correlations observed in photoproduction of $`D^{}`$ mesons associated with jets  at HERA. Also in hadro-production of beauty , $`\chi _c`$  and $`J/\psi `$  at the TEVATRON good agreement is observed. However, for a consistent application of $`k_t`$-factorization in different models, the unintegrated gluon distribution has to be determined in the same framework. Also the various approximations needed to describe the experimental data have to be carefully investigated. In the present paper we have attempted a systematic comparison of model predictions with experimental data regarding the heavy flavor production processes at HERA.

## 2 The $`𝒌_𝒕`$-factorization approach applied to charm production

The production of open-flavored $`c\overline{c}`$ pairs in $`ep`$-collisions is described in terms of the photon-gluon fusion mechanism. A generalization of the usual parton model to the $`k_t`$-factorization approach implies two essential steps. These are the introduction of unintegrated gluon distributions and the modification of the gluon spin density matrix in the parton-level matrix elements.

Here we consider only $`\gamma ^{}g^{}c\overline{c}`$. Let $`k_\gamma `$, $`k_g`$, $`p_c`$ and $`p_{\overline{c}}`$ be the four-momenta of the initial state photon, the initial state gluon, the final state quark and anti-quark respectively, and $`ϵ_\gamma `$ and $`ϵ_g`$ are the corresponding polarization vectors. The photon-gluon fusion matrix elements for the production of an open-flavored $`c\overline{c}`$ pair then reads (with a charm mass $`m_c`$):

$`(\gamma gc\overline{c})`$ $`=`$ $`\overline{u}(p_c)\left({\displaystyle \frac{\mathit{ϵ̸}_\gamma (\mathit{}_c\mathit{}_\gamma +m_c)\mathit{ϵ̸}_g}{k_\gamma ^22k_\gamma p_c}}+{\displaystyle \frac{\mathit{ϵ̸}_g(\mathit{}_c\mathit{}_g+m_c)\mathit{ϵ̸}_\gamma }{k_g^22k_gp_c}}\right)u(p_{\overline{c}})`$ (1)
The matrix-element squared for open heavy quark production has already been calculated in , which we label CE-CCH in the following. In  (labeled as SZ) the calculation of the matrix elements for open heavy quark production has been repeated. In  (labeled as BZ) the method of orthogonal amplitudes  was applied. When calculating the spin average of the matrix element squared, BZ uses $`L^{\mu \nu }`$ for the photon polarization matrix:

$$L^{\mu \nu }=\overline{ϵ_\gamma ^\mu ϵ_\gamma ^\nu }=4\pi \alpha \left[8p_e^\mu p_e^\nu 4(p_ek_\gamma )g^{\mu \nu }\right]/(k_\gamma ^2)^2$$
(2)
where $`p_e`$ is the four momentum of the incoming electron. The expression also includes the photon propagator factor and photon-lepton coupling. In the calculation of CE-CCH and SZ the photon is treated in a similar way as was the gluon in :

$$G^{\mu \nu }=\overline{ϵ_g^\mu ϵ_g^\nu }=k_{tg}^\mu k_{tg}^\nu /|k_{tg}|^2.$$
(3)
This formula converges to the usual $`ϵ^\mu ϵ^\nu =g^{\mu \nu }`$ when $`k_t0`$.

In BZ the complete set of matrix elements have been tested for gauge invariance by substituting the gluon momenta with their polarization vectors showing explicitly the gauge invariance of the matrix element in order $`𝒪(\alpha _s)`$.

The hard scattering cross section for a boson gluon fusion process is written as a convolution of the partonic cross section $`\widehat{\sigma }(x_g,k_t;\gamma ^{}g^{}q\overline{q})`$ with the $`k_t`$ dependent (unintegrated) gluon density $`𝒜(x,k_t^2,\mu ^2)`$ (here and in the following $`k_t(k_{t\gamma })`$ is a shorthand notation for $`|\stackrel{}{k}_t|`$ ($`|\stackrel{}{k}_{t\gamma }|`$) with $`\stackrel{}{k}_t`$ ($`\stackrel{}{k}_{t\gamma }`$) being the two-dimensional vector of the transverse momentum of the gluon (photon)):

$$\sigma =𝑑k_t^2𝑑x_g𝒜(x_g,k_t^2,\mu ^2)\widehat{\sigma }(x_g,k_t;\gamma ^{}g^{}q\overline{q}),$$
(4)
with the off-shell matrix elements either given by CE-CCH, SZ or by BZ. The multidimensional integrations can be performed by means of Monte-Carlo technique either by using VEGAS  for the pure parton level calculations, or by using the full Monte Carlo event generator Cascade .

Since it is difficult to compare the different matrix elements with each other analytically and to prove that they agree, we have performed several numerical checks. In Tab. 1 we show a numerical comparison of the different matrix elements for $`\gamma ^{}g^{}c\overline{c}`$. For the comparison we have chosen the transverse momentum of the charm quark to be $`p_{tc}=5`$ GeV, its rapidity to be $`\eta _c=\eta _{\overline{c}}=0`$ in the $`ep`$ c.m.s. and calculated the other kinematic quantities accordingly. The transverse momenta of the incoming partons are as indicated in the table. In addition we have removed all $`\alpha _s`$ dependencies from the matrix elements. In the calculation of the off-shell matrix elements, approximations are necessary to satisfy the $`k_t`$-factorization theorem: the gluon polarization tensor as given in eq.(3) is applied (which is different to the full polarization tensor of eq.(2)), and the transverse momentum must be dominating the virtuality: $`k^2=k_t^2`$. The last condition is essentially the small $`x`$ (or high energy) approximation. These criteria are satisfied in the calculations of CE-CCH and SZ, whereas the calculation of BZ is done using the full polarization tensor $`L^{\mu \nu }`$ for the photon and only $`G^{\mu \nu }`$ for the gluon without applying the small $`x`$ approximation to the gluon four-vector. To study the effect of the different approximations, we have compared the matrix elements at large c.m.s energies of $`\sqrt{s}=30000`$ GeV and observe good agreement for all cases. This means, that in the asymptotic limit of very high energies, the small $`x`$ approximation and the use of $`G^{\mu \nu }`$ are justified. In Tab. 1 we compare the matrix elements at a c.m.s energy of $`\sqrt{s}=300`$ GeV, typical for HERA experiments, for different values of the transverse photon momentum $`k_{t\gamma }`$ and the incoming gluon $`k_t`$. Whereas the calculations of CE-CCH and SZ agree perfectly in all cases, a systematic difference of the order of $``$ 10% to the calculation of BZ is observed. Since we obtained agreement in the high energy limit, this can be attributed to the effect of the small $`x`$ approximation. In addition BZ treat the polarization of the photon and the gluon differently, and therefore this effect can be quantified by observing a difference of $``$ 10% between the rows two and three in Tab. 1. The above investigations indicate that the effects of the small $`x`$ approximation applied at HERA energies are of the order of $``$ 10%.

It is also interesting to consider the limit $`k_t0`$ of the matrix elements. To do that we define a reduced cross section $`\stackrel{~}{\sigma }`$:

$$\stackrel{~}{\sigma }(k_t)=𝑑\text{Lips}|ME|^2$$
(5)
where we integrate over the Lorentz-invariant-phase-space (Lips) of the final state quarks. The matrix element $`|ME|^2`$ is taken from CE-CCH, where we have set $`16\pi ^2\alpha _{em}\alpha _se_q^21`$.

In Fig. 1 we show $`\stackrel{~}{\sigma }(k_t)`$ as a function of the transverse momentum of the incoming gluon $`k_t`$ for quark masses of $`m=1.5`$ GeV in Fig. 1$`a`$ and for $`m=5`$ GeV in Fig. 1$`b`$ using $`\sqrt{s}=30000`$ GeV and a fixed $`x_\gamma =x_g=0.01`$. In both cases a smooth behavior for $`k_t0`$ is observed. It is also interesting to note that in all cases the cross section starts to decrease at $`k_t^2\text{ }>4m^2`$. The region $`k_t^2>4m^2`$ is still contributing to the total cross section significantly, showing one of the main differences to the usual collinear approximation, where this region is completely ignored.

## 3 The unintegrated gluon distributions

Cross section calculations require an explicit representation of the $`k_t`$ dependent (unintegrated) gluon density $`𝒜(x,k_t^2,\mu ^2)`$. We have used three different representations, one (JB) coming from a leading-order perturbative solution of the BFKL equations , the second set (JS) derived from a numerical solution of the CCFM equation  and the third (KMR) from solution of a combination of the BFKL and DGLAP equations .

* The unintegrated gluon density $`𝒜(x,k_t^2,\mu ^2)`$, in the approach of , is calculated as a convolution of the ordinary gluon density $`xG(x,\mu ^2)`$ (here we use GRV ) with universal weight factors:

$$𝒜(x,k_t^2,\mu ^2)=_x^1𝒢(z,k_t^2,\mu ^2)\frac{x}{z}G(\frac{x}{z},\mu ^2)𝑑z,$$
(6)
$$𝒢(z,k_t^2,\mu ^2)=\frac{\overline{\alpha }_s}{zk_t^2}J_0(2\sqrt{\overline{\alpha }_s\mathrm{ln}(1/z)\mathrm{ln}(\mu ^2/k_t^2)}),k_t^2<\mu ^2,$$
(7)
$$𝒢(z,k_t^2,\mu ^2)=\frac{\overline{\alpha }_s}{zk_t^2}I_0(2\sqrt{\overline{\alpha }_s\mathrm{ln}(1/z)\mathrm{ln}(k_t^2/\mu ^2)}),k_t^2>\mu ^2,$$
(8)
where $`J_0`$ and $`I_0`$ stand for Bessel functions (of real and imaginary arguments, respectively), and $`\overline{\alpha }_s=3\alpha _\mathrm{s}/\pi `$ is connected to the pomeron intercept $`\alpha (0)=1+\mathrm{\Delta }`$, with $`\mathrm{\Delta }=\overline{\alpha }_s4\mathrm{log}2`$ in LO. An expression for $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ in NLO is given in : $`\mathrm{\Delta }=\overline{\alpha }_s4\mathrm{log}2N\overline{\alpha }_s^2`$. In our calculations presented here we use the solution of the LO BFKL equation and treat $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ as free parameter varying between $`0.166<\mathrm{\Delta }<0.53`$ with a central value of $`\mathrm{\Delta }=0.35`$.
* The CCFM evolution equations have been solved numerically in  using a Monte Carlo method. According to the CCFM evolution equation, the emission of partons during the initial cascade is only allowed in an angular-ordered region of phase space. The maximum allowed angle $`\mathrm{\Xi }`$ for any gluon emission sets the scale $`\mu ^2`$ for the evolution and is defined by the hard scattering quark box, which connects the exchanged gluon to the virtual photon.

The free parameters of the starting gluon distribution were fitted to the structure function $`F_2(x,Q^2)`$ in the range $`x<10^2`$ and $`Q^2>5`$ GeV2 as described in .
* In KMR  the dependence of the unintegrated gluon distribution on the two scales $`k_t^2`$ and $`\mu ^2`$ was investigated: the scale $`\mu ^2`$ plays a dual role, it acts as the factorization scale and also controls the angular ordering of the partons emitted in the evolution. This results in a form similar to the differential form of the CCFM equation, however the splitting function $`P(z)`$ is taken from the single scale evolution of the unified DGLAP-BFKL expression discussed in . The unintegrated gluon density $`x𝒜(x,k_t^2,\mu ^2)`$ covering the whole range in $`k_t^2`$ has been evaluated by , giving:

$$x𝒜(x,k_t^2,\mu ^2)=\{\begin{array}{cc}\frac{xG(x,k_{t0}^2)}{k_{t0}^2}\hfill & \text{if }k_t<k_{t0}\hfill \\ \frac{f(x,k_t^2,\mu ^2)}{k_t^2}\hfill & \text{if }k_tk_{t0}\hfill \end{array}$$
(9)
with $`xG(x,k_{t0}^2)`$ being the integrated MRST  gluon density function and $`f(x,k_t^2,\mu ^2)`$ being the unintegrated gluon density of  starting from $`k_t^2>k_{t0}^2=1`$ GeV2. The unintegrated gluon density $`x𝒜(x,k_t^2,\mu ^2)`$ therefore is normalized to the MRST function when integrated up to $`k_{t0}^2`$.

In Fig. 2 we show a comparison of the gluon density distributions at $`\mu ^2=100`$ GeV2 obtained from JB, JS and KMR as a function of $`x`$ for different values of $`k_t^2`$ and as a function of $`k_t^2`$ for different values of $`x`$.

From Fig. 2 we see that all three unintegrated gluon distributions show a significantly different behavior as a function of $`x`$ but even more as a function of $`k_t`$. It will be interesting to see, how this different behavior is reflected in the prediction of cross sections for experimentally observable quantities like charm production at HERA.

## 4 Numerical results and discussion

A comparison between model predictions and data in principle has to be made on hadron level and only if it turns out that hadronization effects are small will a comparison to parton level predictions make sense. However, a full simulation even of the partonic final state, including the initial and final state QCD cascade needs a full Monte Carlo event generator. Such a Monte Carlo generator based on $`k_t`$-factorization and using explicitly off-shell matrix elements for the hard scattering process convoluted with $`k_t`$-unintegrated gluon densities is presently only offered by the Cascade  program which uses the CCFM unintegrated gluon distribution. This is because only the CCFM evolution equation gives a description on how to explicitly build the initial state gluon radiation by applying angular ordering. Other sets of unintegrated gluon distribution can only be used to calculate quantities at the matrix element level, which can be compared to data only if the effect of hadronization and of the complete initial state parton cascade are insignificant.

In the following we want to systematically compare the predictions from the $`k_t`$-factorization approach to published data on charm production at HERA. For this we use $`D^{}`$ photo-production data from ZEUS  and $`D^{}`$ production in deep inelastic scattering from both ZEUS  and H1 .

To do this we first calculate observables using a pure parton level calculation based on the matrix element calculation of BZ including the Peterson fragmentation function  for the transition from the charm quark to the observed $`D^{}`$ meson, where the $`D^{}`$ meson is assumed to take a momentum fraction $`z`$ of the charm quark, in the $`c\overline{c}`$ center-of-mass (c.m.s.) frame. Then we compare the result with a full hadron level simulation using the Monte Carlo generator Cascade with the matrix element of CE-CCH. Also here the Peterson fragmentation function is used but now with $`z`$ being defined as the light-cone momentum fraction in the center-of-mass system of the string connecting the charm quark with its light quark partner, as implemented in Jetset/Pythia . We choose the JS unintegrated gluon for this comparison, which is also appropriate for a description of heavy quark production at high energies .

Next we investigate on parton level different unintegrated gluon densities. After the optimal choice of model parameters has been found for the JB gluon density, giving the best possible agreement with data, we show a comparison to the JS and KMR unintegrated gluon density. We then study the sensitivity of the model predictions to the details of the unintegrated gluon density, the charm mass and the scale.

We also consider the rapidity distribution of the produced $`D^{}`$, which is very sensitive to the choice of the unintegrated gluon density and the details of the $`cD^{}`$ fragmentation.

Then we investigate the $`x_\gamma `$ distribution, which is sensitive to the details of the initial state cascade. We compare the predictions from a pure parton level calculation and a full event simulation of Cascade with the measurements.

At the end we show, motivated by preliminary studies of ZEUS , predictions which are sensitive to the details of the heavy quark production mechanism.

### 4.1 Transverse momentum distribution of $`𝑫^{\mathbf{}}`$ mesons: comparison of parton and hadron level

One observable which is expected to show only little sensitivity to the hadronization and to the full simulation of the initial and final state QCD cascades is the transverse momentum $`p_t`$ of the $`D^{}`$ meson in photo-production and deep inelastic scattering.

In Fig. 3 we show the transverse momentum distribution of $`D^{}`$ mesons as measured by the ZEUS  and H1  collaborations both in photo-production and deep-inelastic scattering. The data are compared to the predictions of the Cascade Monte Carlo event generator on hadron level including a full simulation of the partonic and hadronic final state. Also shown is the pure parton level calculation using the matrix element of BZ. In both cases the transition from the charm quark to the observed $`D^{}`$ meson was performed by a simple Peterson fragmentation function (with $`ϵ=0.06`$ and a $`cD^{}`$ branching ratio $`BR=0.26`$). The scale $`\overline{\mu }^2`$ in $`\alpha _s(\overline{\mu }^2)`$ was set to $`\overline{\mu }^2=p_t^2+m_c^2`$ with $`p_t`$ being the transverse momentum in the $`\gamma g`$ c.m.s. of the final charm quark state assuming $`m_c=1.5`$ GeV. The JS unintegrated gluon distribution  was used, with the scale $`\mu `$ (being related to the maximum angle) $`\mu ^2x_\gamma x_gs`$. The sensitivity to the details of the charm fragmentation and to the full initial state gluon cascade simulation can be seen by comparing Cascade with the parton level calculation. We observe, that the $`p_t`$ distribution of $`D^{}`$ mesons both in photo-production and deep inelastic scattering is in general well described, both with the full hadron level simulation as implemented in Cascade and also with the parton level calculation supplemented with the Peterson fragmentation function. We can thus conclude, that the $`p_t`$ distribution is only little sensitive to the details of the charm fragmentation.

### 4.2 Transverse momentum distribution of $`𝑫^{\mathbf{}}`$ mesons: sensitivity to unintegrated gluon distributions

Since the transverse momentum distribution of $`D^{}`$ mesons is only slightly sensitive to the details of the full parton cascade and charm fragmentation, we can now proceed to investigate the sensitivity to the choice of the unintegrated gluon distribution. In Fig. 4 we show the prediction for $`d\sigma /dp_t`$ obtained from the parton level calculation as above using the JS, JB and KMR unintegrated gluon distributions in comparison with the data. Although differences are observed in the $`x_g`$ and $`k_t`$ distributions between the different unintegrated gluon distributions (see Fig. 2), it is interesting to note, that very similar predictions for the $`D^{}`$ cross sections as a function of the transverse momentum $`p_t`$ are obtained.

In Fig. 5 we investigate in more detail the different unintegrated gluon distributions, the effect of varying the $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ parameter (see sec.(3)) in the JB distribution and of changing the charm-quark mass and the evolution scale $`\overline{\mu }`$. The comparison is performed on the parton level and the Peterson fragmentation function has been used to produce the $`D^{}`$ meson. We define the ratio

$$R=\frac{d\sigma /dp_t}{d\sigma ^{ref}/dp_t}$$

where $`d\sigma ^{ref}/dp_t`$ is calculated using $`\mathrm{\Delta }=0.35`$, $`m_c=1.5`$ GeV and $`\overline{\mu }^2=\widehat{s}/4`$.

The ratio of the differential cross section as a function of $`p_t`$ obtained from the parton level calculation supplemented with the Peterson fragmentation function using the JS (solid line) and KMR (dashed line) unintegrated gluon distributions is shown in Fig. 5$`a`$. The fact that the ratios show different behavior is directly connected to the different slopes in the $`k_t`$ distribution of the parton densities (see Fig. 2).

In Fig. 5$`b`$ we show the ratio $`R`$ for different values of the $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ parameter of the JB unintegrated gluon distribution. We observe that the ratio $`R`$ varies with $`p_t`$ in the low $`p_t`$-range but seems to flatten off at higher $`p_t`$. For $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$-values larger than the reference value an increase in $`R`$ is observed, whereas $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$-values below the reference value result in a decreasing $`R`$. This implies that the $`p_t`$ spectra get harder with increasing $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$-values and softer with decreasing $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ values compared to the reference value $`\mathrm{\Delta }=0.35`$ .

In Fig. 5$`c`$ the effects of changing the mass of the charm quark and the evolution scale are illustrated. A decrease of the charm quark mass leads to an increase of the ratio $`R`$ in the low $`p_t`$ range whereas an increase of the interaction scale from $`\overline{\mu }^2=\widehat{s}/4`$ to $`\overline{\mu }^2=\widehat{s}`$ leads to an overall decrease of $`R`$ by $`2025`$ $`\%`$.

### 4.3 Inclusive distribution: comparison of parton and hadron level

In Fig. 6 we compare the measured cross section for $`D^{}`$-production as function of $`Q^2`$, $`W`$, $`x_{Bj}`$ and $`z_D`$ with calculations using Cascade with the JS unintegrated gluon distribution (solid line) and the parton level calculation supplemented with the Peterson fragmentation function using the JB unintegrated gluon density (dashed line). We also show the effect of changing the charm fragmentation (dotted line).

Good agreement with data is observed for both Cascade with the JS unintegrated gluon density as well as for the parton level calculation with the JB ($`\mathrm{\Delta }`$=0.35) unintegrated gluon density in the differential cross sections as a function of $`\mathrm{log}Q^2`$ and $`\mathrm{log}x_{Bj}`$ . The differential cross section as a function of $`W`$, as shown in Fig. 6$`b`$, is well described by Cascade and somewhat less well described by JB in the peak region, although the errors of the measurement are fairly large. For the energy fraction $`z_D`$ taken by the $`D^{}`$ meson, presented in Fig. 6$`d`$, we observe a slight shift of the JB distribution towards higher $`z_D`$ values compared to Cascade. However, the $`z_D`$ distribution is sensitive to the details of the $`D^{}`$ fragmentation, which is indicated by the dotted line in Fig. 6$`d`$, which represents Cascade, but using the Jetset/Pythia fragmentation function instead of the Peterson one.

In conclusion of the above comparisons, we observe a good description of the differential cross sections as a function of the transverse momentum $`p_t`$ of the $`D^{}`$ meson as well as of inclusive quantities: the unintegrated gluon distributions, which have been considered, are reasonable for the description of the data.

### 4.4 Rapidity distribution of $`𝑫^{\mathbf{}}`$ mesons: comparison of parton and hadron level

In photo-production and in DIS the differential cross section $`d\sigma /d\eta `$, where $`\eta `$ is the pseudo-rapidity of the $`D^{}`$ meson, is sensitive to the choice of the unintegrated gluon distribution. In Fig. 7 we show a comparison of $`d\sigma /d\eta `$ in $`\gamma p`$ and in DIS at parton level supplemented with the Peterson fragmentation function using the JS (solid line), JB (dashed line) and the KMR (dotted line) unintegrated gluon distribution. Large differences in $`d\sigma /d\eta `$ are visible, but one has to keep in mind that especially the $`\eta `$ distribution is also sensitive to the details of the $`cD^{}`$ fragmentation, and therefore a clear distinction of the unintegrated gluon distributions based on this quantity alone might be questionable.

In Fig. 8 we show $`d\sigma /d\eta `$, in photo-production and in DIS, using the JS unintegrated gluon distribution at parton level and with the full simulation of Cascade. We observe, that the parton level prediction including the Peterson fragmentation function is not able to describe the measurements over the full range of $`\eta `$. The effect of a full hadron level simulation is clearly visible as Cascade provides a much better description of the experimental data. Here the Jetset/Pythia charm fragmentation has been used.

From the above it is obvious, that the $`\eta `$ distribution is sensitive to the details of the fragmentation of the charm quark into the $`D^{}`$ meson but also sensitive to the simulation of the initial state QCD cascade. It also shows, that an ordinary next-to-leading calculation at parton level cannot be expected to describe the $`\eta `$ distribution, since a full simulation of the initial state parton evolution obviously is important for a reasonable description of heavy quark decays.

However, in photoproduction even the full event simulation of Cascade shows differences to the measurement at large values of $`\eta >1`$. These large values of $`\eta >1`$ are related to large values of the momentum fraction $`x_g\text{ }>0.03`$ of the gluons entering the hard subprocess, as shown in Fig. 9. It is intuitively understandable, that the small-$`x`$ approximation becomes less reliable at large $`x_g`$-values. In addition, values of $`x_g\text{ }>0.03`$ are not constrained in the determination of JS as described in . It is therefore not surprising that the description is not perfect in this kinematic region.

In Fig. 10 we show the cross section $`d\sigma /d\eta `$ of deep inelastic $`D^{}`$ production as measured by H1  for different ranges in $`z_D`$ together with the prediction of Cascade with the Jetset/Pythia charm fragmentation function and the JS unintegrated gluon density (solid line). Also shown is the parton level calculation supplemented with the Peterson fragmentation function and the JB (dashed line) unintegrated gluon density. We observe that again the JS unintegrated gluon distribution together with a full event simulation gives a reasonable description of the data of this double differential cross section.

### 4.5 $`𝑫^{\mathbf{}}`$ and associated jet production: comparison of parton and hadron level

In the BFKL and/or CCFM equations the transverse momenta of the exchanged or emitted partons are only restricted by kinematics. In such a scenario, the hardest $`p_t`$ emission can be anywhere in the gluon chain, and needs not to sit closest to the photon as required by the strong $`q^2`$ ordering in DGLAP.

Photo-production of charm is an ideal testing ground for studying the underlying parton dynamics, since charm quarks are predominantly produced via $`\gamma c\overline{c}`$. The observation of any emission (jet) with $`p_t>p_t^c(p_t^{\overline{c}})`$ indicates a scenario, which in DGLAP is possible only in a full $`O(\alpha _s^2)`$ calculation or when charm excitation of the photon is included. However, in $`k_t`$ factorization such a scenario comes naturally, since the transverse momenta along the evolution chain are not $`k_t`$ ordered.

The ZEUS collaboration has measured charm and associated jet production . In these measurements, the quantity of interest is the fractional photon momentum involved in the production of the two jets of highest $`E_t`$, which is experimentally defined as

$$x_\gamma ^{OBS}=\frac{E_{1t}\mathrm{exp}(\eta _1)+E_{2t}\mathrm{exp}(\eta _2)}{2E_ey}$$
(10)
with $`E_{it}`$ and $`\eta _i`$ being the transverse energy and rapidity of the hardest jets and $`y`$ being the fractional photon energy.

In Fig. 11 we show a diagrammatic representation of the different processes involved in charm photoproduction. Thus, if the two hardest transverse momentum jets are produced by the $`c\overline{c}`$ pair, then $`x_\gamma ^{OBS}`$ is close to unity (Fig. 11$`a`$), but if a gluon from the initial state cascade together with one of the $`c`$-quarks form the hardest transverse momentum jets, then $`x_\gamma ^{OBS}<1`$ (Fig. 11$`b`$). In a leading order calculation using the collinear approximation $`x_\gamma ^{OBS}<1`$ indicates a resolved photon like process (Fig. 11$`b`$). Such a scenario is obtained naturally also in a full NLO ($`𝒪(\alpha _s^2)`$) calculation, because in the three parton final state ($`c\overline{c}g`$) any of these partons are allowed to take any kinematically accessible value (Fig. 11$`c`$). In the $`k_t`$ factorization approach the anomalous component of the photon ($`\gamma c\overline{c}`$) is automatically included, since there is no restriction on the transverse momenta along the evolution chain.

The experimentally observed $`x_\gamma ^{OBS}`$ spectrum (Fig. 12$`c`$) shows a tail to small values of $`x_\gamma ^{OBS}`$, indicating that the hardest emission is indeed not always coming from the charm quarks. In Fig. 12$`a`$ we show a comparison of the $`x_\gamma ^{OBS}`$ distribution obtained on parton level with the JB unintegrated gluon density. Indicated is also the contribution from events where the gluon is the hardest, next-to-hardest and softest parton. A significant part of the cross section comes from events, where the gluon is the jet with the largest transverse momentum . In Fig. 12$`b`$ we compare the $`x_\gamma ^{OBS}`$ distribution obtained at parton level from the JB unintegrated gluon with the one from JS. In both cases a significant tail towards small $`x_\gamma `$ values is observed, however the details depend on the unintegrated gluon distribution. In Fig. 12$`c`$ we show a comparison of the measurement from the ZEUS collaboration  with the prediction from the full event simulation of Cascade using the JS unintegrated gluon distribution and applying jet reconstruction and jet selection at the hadron level. We observe a reasonably good agreement, showing indeed a large tail towards small $`x_\gamma ^{OBS}`$ values in agreement with the observation from data. We can conclude that the $`k_t`$-factorization approach effectively simulates heavy quark excitation and indeed the hardest $`p_t`$ emission comes frequently from a gluon in the initial state gluon cascade.

Another interesting quantity is the angular distribution of resolved photon like events ($`x_\gamma ^{OBS}<0.75`$) compared to the direct-photon like events ($`x_\gamma ^{OBS}>0.75`$. An important difference between the two (direct (Fig. 11$`a`$), resolved (Fig. 11$`b`$)) scattering processes is that a quark (charm in this case) is the propagator of the hard scattering in the direct photon like events and a gluon in the dominant resolved photon like events. The angular distribution of dijets with a $`D^\pm `$ in the final state is dependent on the type of propagator (quark or gluon) connecting both jets (if we neglect the case, where a parton is emitted in the rapidity range between the two hardest jets). In the collinear approximation, the angular distribution is determined by the matrix element ($`\gamma gc\overline{c}`$ in the direct case or $`cgcg`$ in the resolved photon case). In the $`k_t`$-factorization approach the angular distribution will be determined from the off-shell matrix element, which covers both scattering processes.

In Fig. 13 we show the $`|\mathrm{cos}\theta ^{}|`$ distribution, where $`\theta ^{}`$ is the scattering angle of the hard jets to the beam axis in the dijet c.m.s. Applying the same cuts and using the same jet-algorithm as in , we can see that the direct photon like events give a slow rise in cross-section with increasing $`|\mathrm{cos}\theta ^{}|`$. However, the cross section of the resolved photon like events rises very rapidly because of the $`t`$-channel gluon exchange being a combined effect of the off-shell gluon and the unintegrated gluon distribution.

Thus the partons of the initial state radiation in the $`k_t`$-factorization approach give information on the spins of the propagators, as well as on the parton dynamics of the underlying sub-processes. We specifically checked the dynamics in our approach by only allowing the final state partons ($`c\overline{c}`$) to appear in the hard scattering (i.e. turning off the simulation of the initial state gluon cascade in Cascade, but keeping the final state parton shower). Here we should expect to see only the quark exchange kind of behavior for both direct and resolved like events, which is also verified as seen in Fig. 13 with dotted and dashed lines overlapping around the default mode with $`x_\gamma >0.75`$.

In order to further probe the parton dynamics in this approach, we divide the entire sample into two parts, one where the $`D^{}`$ proceeds along the photon direction, (i.e. $`\eta _D^{}<0`$) and one where it travels along the proton direction (i.e. $`\eta _D^{}>0`$). If the $`t`$-channel gluon is indeed the dominant contribution to the cross section, then the angular distribution will be peaked towards the direction of the incoming photon. This asymmetry should persist (more or less) equally for charm and anti-charm. Such an asymmetry cannot be seen in the inclusive dijet sample (without separation of gluon and quark jets), because by definition the distribution must be $`tu`$ symmetric as long as we do not attempt to discriminate different kinds of jets.

In Fig. 14 we show the $`|\mathrm{cos}\theta ^{}|`$ distribution for the two cases with the $`D^{}`$ found in the the photon $`(a)`$ and proton $`(b)`$ direction, with $`x_\gamma ^{OBS}>0.75`$ and $`x_\gamma ^{OBS}<0.75`$ in the same phase space as in , except with an additional cut on average pseudorapidity of the jets, $`|\overline{\eta }|<0.1`$, to ensure an unbiased phase space region as discussed in . As one can see, with the $`D^{}`$ in the photon direction, there is a steep rise in the cross-section for resolved photon like events compared to the direct photon like events. This increase in $`|\mathrm{cos}\theta ^{}|`$ obtained through the initial state gluon cascade in the $`k_t`$-factorization approach can also be interpreted as “charm excitation” processes. On the other hand, with the $`D^{}`$ in the proton direction, we can only see a mild rise in cross-section for both direct and resolved photon like events, which shows that the quark exchange is the dominant contribution (in the HERA kinematic range).

## 5 Conclusion

Three different models based on small $`x`$ resummation (BFKL and CCFM formalism) and $`k_t`$-factorization have been studied in various aspects. Two of the approaches only deliver results on parton level (JB and KMR) whereas the third one (JS) has been implemented into an event generator providing complete simulation of the initial and final state parton shower and hadronization. The ability of the models to reproduce experimental data has been investigated for charm production in the kinematic range of HERA. The aim has been to find out whether optimal sets of model parameters could be found leading to satisfactory description of all data, but also to illustrate the sensitivity of the model prediction from variations of the various parameters. The unintegrated gluon distributions of the three approaches exhibit different behaviors as a function of $`x`$ but especially as a function of $`k_t`$. In spite of this we find good agreement between the models and data on $`p_t`$, $`\mathrm{log}Q^2`$, $`\mathrm{log}W`$ and $`\mathrm{log}x_{Bj}`$ distributions, which indicates that these variables are not sensitive enough to differentiate between the models. The less good description of the $`z_D`$ distribution observed for two of the models might be due to different treatment of the $`D^{}`$ fragmentation. The sensitivity to the $`D^{}`$ fragmentation is seen very clearly in the case of the $`\eta `$-distribution which also needs a full simulation of the initial and final state parton emission to give a reasonable description of the data.

From comparisons with data on photoproduction of charm leading to jets, it became evident that a gluon from the initial cascade frequently produces the jet of highest $`p_t`$. Considering the uncertainties due to parton radiation and hadronization effects the models give consistent results. The distribution in polar angle of the hard jets, as generated by the Cascade program, predicts that the gluon propagator is dominant in the hard scattering of resolved photon like events, leading to high $`p_t`$-jets initiated by a quark and a gluon. The polar angle spectrum for direct photon events, however, is consistent with the propagator of the hard scattering being a quark, resulting in hard quark-antiquark jets.

We have shown, that the $`k_t`$ \- factorization approach can be consistently used to describe measurements of charm production at HERA, which are known to be not well reproduced in the collinear approach. We have also shown, that in $`k_t`$-factorization, resolved photon like processes are effectively simulated including the proper angular distributions. The $`k_t`$ \- factorization approach has become now a challenging tool to understand the underlying dynamical processes in high energy collisions.

## Acknowledgments

We are grateful to M. Derrick for careful reading of the manuscript. S.B. and N.Z. thank the Royal Swedish Academy of Science for support. One of us (S.P.) acknowledges the support by Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada (NSERC) and thanks M. Drees, U. Karshon and M. Wing for valuable discussions. H.J. wants to thank the DESY directorate for hospitality and support.


text:
# Models of Type Ia Supernova Explosions

## Models of Type Ia Supernova Explosions

##### Max-Planck-Institut für Astrophysik, Karl-Schwarzschild-Str. 1, 85748 Garching, Germany

### 0.1 Introduction

The comparison of the luminosity distances of low and high redshift samples of type Ia supernovae (SNe Ia) is the central pillar of the claim that our universe is accelerating . The observational techniques, data analysis (including the light curve shape corrections), and potential sources of systematic errors have been discussed and reviewed (e.g. ) extensively in the literature. One, perhaps the most important, remaining uncertainty is the possible evolution of the supernova sample. Some or even all of the observed dimming of SNe Ia at $`z1`$ may still be the result of an intrinsic trend of peak brightness with cosmic age that is not, or only incompletely, accompanied by the corresponding change of the light curve width. Empirically, all of the observed correlations of supernova brightness with stellar population seem to disappear after the light curve shape correction, hence no such trend is evident . On the other hand, it is very difficult to extrapolate this result to higher redshifts without a solid theoretical understanding of the origin of these correlations and of the physics of the brightness-decline relation itself. This, in turn, requires the construction of self-consistent explosion models with as few adjustable parameters as possible.

From the point of view of cosmology, in particular the planned use of SNe Ia as high-precision tools to map out the equation of state of the universe, some of the most urgent questions that supernova theorists and observers must answer are: a) What are the progenitors?, b)Is there only one class of explosions or many?, c) What is the physics that governs the diversity of SNe Ia?, and d) How robust are the correlations between peak brightness, light curve shape, and spectral features with respect to, say, multidimensional mixing? This is a challenging program that, apart from cosmology, involves a lot of fascinating physics.

Much progress has been made in recent years in the field of multidimensional explosion models. We give a very brief overview of the currently discussed explosion scenarios in Sec. (0.2) (for more details and references, see ) and describe our approaches to simulating Chandrasekhar mass deflagration models in two and three dimensions in Sec. (0.3).

### 0.2 Explosion Scenarios

The lack of hydrogen and presence of silicon in SN Ia spectra, the rate of the light curve decline powered by decaying nickel, and the inferred minimum age of some SN Ia progenitors are all consistent with thermonuclear explosions of C+O white dwarf stars . In order to trigger the explosion, the star is believed to accrete matter from a binary companion until critical conditions are reached. The various explosion scenarios below differ mainly in the rate and composition of the accreted material, the mass of the white dwarf when it explodes, the location of the ignition, and the propagation mode of the burning front.

The strong temperature dependence of the nuclear reaction rates, $`\dot{S}T^{12}`$ at $`T10^{10}`$ K, confines the nuclear burning to microscopically thin layers that propagate either conductively as subsonic deflagrations (“flames”) or by shock compression as supersonic detonations. Both modes are linearly unstable to spatial perturbations. In the nonlinear regime, the burning fronts are either stabilized by forming a cellular structure or become fully turbulent – either way, the total burning rate increases as a result of flame surface growth. Neither flames nor detonations can be resolved in explosion simulations on stellar scales and therefore have to be represented by numerical models.

#### 0.2.1 Chandrasekhar Mass Explosion Models

Given the overall homogeneity of SNe Ia, the good agreement of parameterized 1D models with observed spectra and light curves, and their reasonable nucleosynthetic yields, the bulk of normal SNe Ia is generally assumed to consist of exploding C+O white dwarfs that have reached the Chandrasekhar mass, Mch, by accretion of hydrogen or helium that burns stably to carbon and oxygen. Flame ignition takes place near the center following roughly $`10^3`$ years of core convection. There is no clear identification of natural progenitor systems, but supersoft X-ray sources (SSXS) look relatively promising .

##### Prompt detonation

The first hydrodynamical simulation of an exploding Mch-white dwarf  assumed that the thermonuclear combustion commences as a detonation wave, consuming the entire star at the speed of sound. Given no time to expand prior to being burned, the C+O material in this scenario is transformed almost completely into iron-peaked nuclei and thus fails to produce significant amounts of intermediate mass elements, in contradiction to observations. It is for this reason that Mch-explosions are believed to begin in the deflagration (flame) mode.

##### Pure turbulent deflagration

Once ignited, a subsonic thermonuclear flame becomes highly convoluted as a result of turbulence produced by the Rayleigh-Taylor instability (buoyancy) and the secondary Kelvin-Helmholtz instability (shear) along the flame front. It continues to burn through the star until it either transitions into a detonation or is quenched by expansion.

By far the most simulations to date are spherically symmetric, ignoring the multidimensionality of the flame and treating the turbulent flame speed $`S_\mathrm{t}`$ as a free parameter. These studies essentially agree that good agreement with the observations is obtained if $`S_\mathrm{t}`$ accelerates up to roughly 30 % of the sound speed.

In multiple dimensions, the problem of simulating turbulent deflagrations has two aspects: the representation of the thin, propagating surface separating hot and cold material with different densities, and the prescription of the local propagation velocity $`S_\mathrm{t}(\mathrm{\Delta })`$ of this surface as a function of the hydrodynamical state of the large-scale calculation with numerical resolution $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$. Our solution to this problem is sketched in Sec. (0.3); for a different approach see .

Most authors agree that the turbulent flame speed decouples from microphysics on large enough scales and becomes dominated by essentially universal hydrodynamical effects, making the scenario intrinsically robust. A noteworthy exception is the location and number of ignition points that significantly influences the explosion outcome and may be a possible candidate for the mechanism giving rise to the explosion strength variability. Other possible sources of variations include the ignition density and the accretion rate of the progenitor system. All of these effects may potentially vary with composition and metallicity and can therefore account for the dependence on the progenitor stellar population.

##### Delayed detonation

Turbulent deflagrations can sometimes be observed to undergo spontaneous transitions to detonations (deflagration-detonation transitions, DDTs) in terrestrial combustion experiments. It was suggested that DDTs may occur in the late phase of a Mch-explosion, providing an elegant explanation for the initial slow burning required to pre-expand the star, followed by a fast combustion mode that produces large amounts of high-velocity intermediate mass elements . Many 1D simulations have meanwhile demonstrated the capability of the delayed detonation scenario to provide good fits to SN Ia spectra and light curves, as well as reasonable nucleosynthesis products. In the best fit models, the initial flame phase has a rather slow velocity of roughly one percent of the sound speed and transitions to detonation at a density of $`\rho _{\mathrm{DDT}}10^7`$ g cm-3. The transition density was also found to be a convenient parameter to explain the observed sequence of explosion strengths .

On the minus side, obtaining a DDT in unconfined media without walls or obstacles relies on local quenching of the thermonuclear burning in a region that is many orders of magnitude larger than the flame thickness . This is difficult to achieve by turbulent strain alone . Furthermore, multidimensional simulations indicate that the turbulent flame speed is closer to 30 % than 1 % of the speed of sound, so that delayed detonations seem no longer to be needed from the energetic point of view (although they may be beneficial for removing unburned material near the core) .

In another variety of the delayed detonation scenario, the first turbulent deflagration phase fails to release enough energy to unbind the star which subsequently pulses and triggers a detonation upon recollapse (“pulsational delayed detonation”). All pulsational models are in conflict with current multidimensional simulations that predict an unbound star after the first deflagration phase.

#### 0.2.2 Sub-Chandrasekhar Mass Models

C+O white dwarfs below the Chandrasekhar mass do not reach the critical density and temperature for explosive carbon burning in the core and need to be ignited by an external trigger. Detonations in the accreted He layer were suggested to drive a strong enough shock into the C+O core to initiate a secondary carbon detonation. These so-called edge-lit detonations might explain the class of very weak, subluminous explosions such as SN 1991bg. They are favored mostly by the statistics of possible SN Ia progenitor systems  and by the straightforward explanation of the one-parameter strength sequence in terms of the white dwarf mass. However, their ejecta structure is characterized almost inevitably by an outer layer of high-velocity Ni and He above the intermediate mass elements and the inner Fe/Ni core. Therefore, these models appear to disagree photometrically and spectroscopically with observations, but more work on the explosion physics is needed to come to a final conclusion.

#### 0.2.3 Merging White Dwarfs

The merging white dwarf (or “double degenerate”) scenario has to overcome the crucial problem of avoiding accretion-induced collapse before it can be seriously considered as a SN Ia candidate. If the accretion rate of C+O onto the remaining white dwarf is larger than a few times $`10^6`$ M yr-1, the most likely outcome is off-center carbon ignition leading to an inward propagating flame that converts the star into O+Ne+Mg. This configuration, in turn, is gravitationally unstable owing to electron capture onto 24Mg and will undergo accretion-induced collapse to form a neutron star. Dimensional analysis of the expected turbulent viscosity suggests that it is very difficult to avoid such high accretion rates .

Its key strengths are a plausible explanation for the progenitor history yielding reasonable predictions for SN Ia rates, the straightforward explanation of the absence of H and He in SN Ia spectra, and the existence of a simple parameter for the explosion strength family (i.e., the mass of the merged system).

### 0.3 Multidimensional Mch-Models

In this section, we describe multidimensional simulations of what we consider the best model for the majority of SN Ia events, i.e. the pure turbulent deflagration model of Sec. (0.2.1) (see  for details). Our basic assumptions are as follows: the initial model is a cold white dwarf with the Chandrasekhar mass, consisting of equal amounts of carbon and oxygen. Flame ignition starts in the inner $`150`$ km of the star and the initial flame geometry acts as our principal free parameter. No deflagration-detonation-transition is assumed to occur.

#### 0.3.1 Modeling of the turbulent combustion front

The initial mixture consists of 12C and 16O at low temperatures. Because of the electron degeneracy the fuel temperature is nearly decoupled from the rest of the thermodynamic quantities, and since temperature is not used to determine the initial reaction rates, its exact value is unimportant.

When the flame passes through the fuel, carbon and oxygen are converted to ash, which has different compositions depending on the density of the unburned material. At high densities a mixture of 56Ni and $`\alpha `$-particles in nuclear statistic equilibrium (NSE) is synthesized. At lower densities burning only produces intermediate mass elements, which are represented by 24Mg. Once the density drops below $`10^7`$ g cm-3, no burning takes place.

In the material burned to NSE, the proportion of 56Ni and $`\alpha `$-particles changes depending on density and temperature even after the flame has processed the material.

The transition densities from NSE to incomplete burning, as well as from incomplete burning to flame extinction were derived from data of a W7 run provided by K. Nomoto. This approach is rather phenomenological, and since these densities can have a potentially large impact on the simulation outcome it will have to be re-examined in a thorough manner.

The numerical representation of the thermonuclear reaction front (i.e. the location where the “fast” reactions take place) is described in detail in . The flame front is associated with the zero level set of a function $`G(\stackrel{}{r},t)`$, whose temporal evolution is given by

$$\frac{G}{t}=(\stackrel{}{v}_u+s_u\stackrel{}{n})(\stackrel{}{n}|\stackrel{}{}G|)\text{,}$$
(1)
where $`\stackrel{}{v}_u`$ and $`s_u`$ denote the fluid and flame propagation velocity in the unburned material ahead of the front, and $`\stackrel{}{n}`$ is the front normal pointing towards the fuel. In our case, $`s_u`$ identified with by the effective turbulent flame speed on the scale of the grid resolution, $`S_\mathrm{t}(\mathrm{\Delta })`$ (see below). The advection of $`G`$ caused by the fluid motions is treated by the piecewise parabolic method which is also used by our code to integrate the Euler equations. After each time step, the front is additionally advanced by $`s_u\mathrm{\Delta }t`$ normal to itself.

This equation is only applied in the close vicinity of the front, whereas in the other regions $`G`$ is adjusted such that

$$|\stackrel{}{}G|=1\text{.}$$
(2)
The source terms for energy and composition due to the fast thermonuclear reactions in every grid cell are determined as follows:

$`X_{\text{Ashes}}^{}`$ $`=\text{max}(1\alpha ,X_{\text{Ashes}})`$ (3)
$`X_{\text{Fuel}}^{}`$ $`=1X_{\text{Ashes}}^{}`$ (4)
$`e_{\text{tot}}^{}`$ $`=e_{\text{tot}}+q(X_{\text{Ashes}}^{}X_{\text{Ashes}})\text{,}`$ (5)
where $`\alpha `$ is the volume fraction of the cell occupied by unburned material; this quantity can be determined from the values of $`G`$ in the cell and its neighbors. The quantity $`q`$ represents the specific energy release of the total reaction.

All multidimensional simulations of exploding white dwarfs share the problem that it is impossible to resolve all hydrodynamically unstable scales. The consequence is that the simulated thermonuclear flame can only develop structures on the resolved macroscopic scales, while the real reaction front will be folded and wrinkled on much finer scales. Simply neglecting the surface increase on sub-grid scales would lead to an underestimation of the energy generation rate, which is not acceptable; therefore a model for a turbulent flame speed $`S_\mathrm{t}`$ is required to compensate this effect.

For the case of very strong turbulence it has been shown that $`S_\mathrm{t}`$ decouples from the laminar flame speed and is proportional to the turbulent velocity fluctuations $`v^{}`$. In our simulations, $`v^{}(\mathrm{\Delta })`$ is determined by using the sub-grid model introduced to SN Ia simulations by . For the presented calculations a few corrections were applied (see ).

#### 0.3.2 Two-dimensional resolution study

To study the robustness of our code with respect to a change of the numerical resolution, simulations were performed with grid sizes of $`128^2`$, $`256^2`$, $`512^2`$ and $`1024^2`$ cells, whose corresponding resolutions in the uniform inner part of the grid were $`210^6`$ cm, $`10^6`$ cm, $`510^5`$ cm and $`2.510^5`$ cm. The initial flame geometry (called c3\_2d) used for all these calculations is identical to the setup C3 presented by : the matter within a radius of $`1.510^7`$cm from the stellar center was incinerated, and the surface of the burned region was perturbed to accelerate the development of Rayleigh-Taylor instabilities.

Fig. 1 shows the energy release of the models; except for the run with the lowest resolution, the curves are nearly identical in the early and intermediate explosion stages. Simulation c3\_2d\_128 exhibits a very slow initial energy increase and does not reach the same final level as the other models. Most likely this is due to insufficient resolution, which leads to a very coarsely discretized initial front geometry and thereby to an underestimation of the flame surface. From this result it can be deduced that all supernova simulations performed with our code should have a central resolution of $`10^6`$ cm or better.

Overall, our model for the turbulent flame speed appears to compensate the lack of small structures in the front very well.

#### 0.3.3 Three-dimensional simulation

In order to compare two- and three-dimensional simulations directly, a 3D calculation was performed using the same initial conditions as given in Sect. 0.3.2. For this purpose the initial two-dimensional flame location was rotated by 90 degrees around the $`z`$-axis and mapped onto the three-dimensional Cartesian grid consisting of $`256^3`$ cells with a central resolution of $`10^6`$ cm. Only one octant of the white dwarf was simulated and mirror symmetry was assumed with respect to the coordinate planes.

The initial configuration, as well as snapshots at later times, are shown in Fig. 2. Obviously, the initial axisymmetry is lost after 0.2 – 0.3 s, although no explicit perturbation in $`\phi `$-direction was applied to the front. This happens because the initial flame geometry cannot be mapped perfectly onto a Cartesian grid and therefore the front is not transported with exactly the same speed for all $`\phi `$. During the next few tenths of a second, these small deviations cause the formation of fully three-dimensional Rayleigh-Taylor-mushrooms, leading to a strong convolution of the flame. As expected, this phenomenon has a noticeable influence on the explosion energetics; this is illustrated in Fig. 3.

Before the loss of axial symmetry in c3\_3d\_256, the total energy evolution is almost identical for both simulations, which strongly suggests that the two- and three-dimensional forms of the employed turbulence and level set models are consistent, i.e. that no errors were introduced during the extension of these models to three dimensions. In the later phases the 3D model releases more energy as a direct consequence of the surface increase shown in Fig. 2.

#### 0.3.4 Discussion and conclusions

The white dwarf becomes unbound in all of our models, which implies that no recontraction (and hence no pulsational detontation) occurs. Nevertheless only the three-dimensional model results in a powerful enough explosion to qualify as a typical SN Ia; the two-dimensional scenarios are too weak to accelerate the ejecta to the speeds observed in real events and produce too little nickel to power a standard SN Ia light curve.

The 3D calculation is a good candidate for typical SN Ia explosions, at least with respect to explosion strength and remnant composition. The produced nickel mass of 0.53 M falls well into the range of $``$ 0.45 – 0.7 M determined by  for several typical events, and it can be deduced from the amount of 0.18 M of “magnesium” in the ejecta that enough intermediate mass elements were synthesized to explain the observed spectral features.

Qualitatively, our results for the explosion energetics are in relatively good agreement with recent simulations performed by , employing different numerical models and initial conditions. We interpret this as an inherent robustness of the Chandrasekhar mass deflagration scenario.

This development is a major step towards constructing self-consistent models for type Ia supernovae. The remaining free parameters are chosen according to our best understanding of the unresolved physics without any reference to obtaining “good” explosions. As there will always be relevant unresolved scales in this problem, we need to keep improving our understanding by performing numerical experiments of turbulent thermonuclear combustion on microscopic and intermediate scales. Nevertheless, our results make us optimistic that multidimensional models will soon allow us to understand how type Ia supernovae really work.

Acknowledgements

We thank Bruno Leibundgut and Paolo Mazzali for helpful discussions.