text:
# On the lithium content of the globular cluster M92

## 1 Introduction

The present note is motivated by the recent analysis of the metal-poor globular cluster NGC 6397 by Bonifacio et al. (2002). We have confirmed that all the cluster stars share the same Li abundance that is found exactly at the level of the Spite plateau defined for field stars. This supports the notion that Li in metal-poor stars is of primordial origin and good agreement is found with the other primordial nuclei D and $`{}_{}{}^{3}\mathrm{He}`$. However, in this picture, the observations of Boesgaard et al. (1998) of Li in the globular cluster M 92 are troublesome. After a careful analysis of the best available data, the above authors conclude that there is a dispersion in Li abundances by a factor of three, unexplained by observational errors. The most likely explanation suggested for this dispersion is differential Li depletion due to rotational mixing; the stars would deplete more or less Li depending on their initial angular momentum. While this is a reasonable explanation, one is left to wonder why such effect should be observable in M 92 but not in NGC 6397, which has a very similar metallicity. Moreover, recent models that predict Li depletion either through rotational mixing (Pinsonneault et al., 2002), or diffusion (Salaris, & Weiss, 2001), or a combination of both plus composition gradient (Théado & Vauclair, 2001), predict a mild depletion of 0.1 – 0.2 dex accompanied by a very tiny dispersion. It is doubtful that such a tiny dispersion could be detected in M 92 with the presently available data. The experience with NGC 6397 has shown that use of a photometric colour such as $`by`$ or $`BV`$ to estimate effective temperatures is not well suited to the issue of the scatter in Li abundances. The Li abundance is very sensitive to errors in $`T_{\mathrm{eff}}`$, therefore quite small photometric errors in the colours, translate into large errors on Li abundances. In the case of NGC 6397, Bonifacio et al. (2002) took advantage of the fact that above the TO, where the observed stars lie, there is a tight relation between V magnitude and $`by`$; after correcting for the cluster reddening, this may be calibrated against temperature. The advantage is that an error of 0.05 mag in V translates into an error of only 20 – 70 K in Teff. A possible drawback is the vulnerability of the method to binarity and Boesgaard et al. (1998) note that SH 18 may have a variable radial velocity, indicating the presence of a companion. In this note I use the V – $`T_{\mathrm{eff}}`$ calibration to reanalyse the Li data in M 92.

## 2 Analysis

I take the equivalent widths of Boesgaard et al. (1998). In order to use the $`VT_{eff}`$ calibration of Bonifacio et al. (2002), the cluster fiducial line in the $`V,(by)_0`$ plane is required. To assess the scatter in Li abundances, a transformation of the the fiducial line of the cluster of Stetson & Harris (1988) from the $`(BV),V`$ plane to the $`(by)_0,V`$ plane will suffice. For the cluster I adopt the reddening $`E(BV)=0.025`$ of Carretta, et al. (2000). A transformation from $`(by)`$ to $`(BV)`$ has been published by Cousins (1987), however this cannot be readily inverted since it involves also the metallicity-dependent index $`m_0`$. To derive a transformation that applies to the TO stars of M92 I selected the stars used by Bonifacio et al. (2000) to determine their intrinsic colour calibration, which have both Johnson and Strömgren photometry with $`2.5[\mathrm{Fe}/\mathrm{H}]1.5`$. The data for these stars is summarized in Table 2; the photometric data has been slightly revised with respect to Bonifacio et al. (2000) according to the current holdings of the General Catalog of Photometric data (Mermillod et al., 1996). Both synthetic colours and Cousin’s calibration suggest that any transformation between $`(BV)`$ and $`(by)`$ should involve a metallicity-dependent term. Since the Johnson system, unlike the Strömgren, does not have any specific metallicity dependent index and the dependence of $`UB`$ on metallicity in this range of $`BV`$ is as small as about 0.04 mag per 0.5 dex in metallicity, I prefer to use \[Fe/H\] directly as a parameter. With as few as 11 calibrating points, it is not wise to fit anything more complex than a linear relation; however the theoretical colours suggest that this should be adequate. A $`\chi ^2`$ fit of a linear relation, taking into account errors in $`BV`$,\[Fe/H\] (a 0.2 dex error has been assumed for all the stars) and $`by`$ provides

$$(by)=0.74(BV)0.05[\mathrm{Fe}/\mathrm{H}]0.08;$$

the reduced $`\chi ^2`$ is 0.88579 which denotes a good fit and corresponds to a probability of 0.527, the root mean square is 0.01 mag. In the case of M92, \[Fe/H\]$`2.0`$ so that the transformation may be simplified to

$$(by)0.74(BV)+0.00149;$$

This calibration is formally valid only for the colour and metallicity range spanned by the calibrators, thus $`0.357BV0.487`$. Three of the stars observed by Boesgaard et al. (1998) are slightly cooler than this range, however the largest extrapolation required is for star # 34 and it is of only 0.031 mag, and thus is not a serious problem for the issue addressed in this note.

I use the above transformation to transpose the fiducial TO of Stetson & Harris (1988) to the $`(by)_0,V`$ plane. From this I obtain the $`V`$$`T_{\mathrm{eff}}`$calibration using the same $`by`$$`T_{\mathrm{eff}}`$used in Bonifacio et al. (2002) . With these effective temperatures I derive Li abundances, as described in Bonifacio et al. (2002): I computed a model atmosphere for each temperature and log g = 3.75, as adopted by King et al. (1998). The internal errors in effective temperature arising from the the photometric error in V are of the order of 10 to 50 K and can be neglected in estimating the error on A(Li)111I use the usual notation A(Li) = 12+log\[N(Li)/N(H)\], which is totally dominated by the errors on the equivalent widths. Of course the external error is at least of the order of 100 K, and possibly larger, since I did not use Strömgren photometry; however for the purpose of the present discussion I shall not consider the external error on effective temperatures. Effective temperatures, Li abundances with their errors, as well as the equivalent widths of Boesgaard et al. (1998) as well as their Li abundances both on the King (1993) and on the Carney (1983) scale, are given in Table 1 .

There are 6 measures and one upper limit. Not unexpectedly the upper limit is for the hottest and faintest star of the sample, therefore the one with the smallest equivalent width of the Li doublet and among the smallest S/N ratios. The mean A(Li) for the six measurements is 2.33 with a standard deviation of 0.20 . In order to assess if this scatter is compatible with the observational error I use a Monte Carlo simulation, as done by Bonifacio et al. (2002). I generate 10000 samples of 7 “observations”, each scattered around a mean 2.3 with a Gaussian distribution of $`\sigma `$ equal to the estimated error in A(Li) and compute the standard deviation $`s`$ of these 7 “observations”. For the upper limit I consider an error of 0.34 dex, which is the error corresponding to an error in equivalent width of 1.1 pm for a star of $`T_{\mathrm{eff}}`$= 6557 K. The mean $`s`$ of the 10000 samples is 0.20 with a standard deviation of 0.07, therefore the simulations suggests that the observed scatter is entirely due to the errors in the observations. I can also estimate the probability of having a non-detection of Li in at least one star of the sample of 7. I define the minimum A(Li) detectable as 1.72, based on the data for SH 80, and find that out of 10000 samples, 400 satisfy this condition, therefore the probability of having a non-detection is about 4% . This probability is small but non-negligible. Of course since the errors are rather large (due to the faintness of the TO of M92) there could be an intrinsic scatter in Li abundances of the order of 0.18 dex, which would go totally unnoticed. One could suspect that the scatter found in the Monte Carlo simulations is dominated by the inclusion of the rather large error associated with star SH 80, however this is not the case. I performed a Monte Carlo simulation with only 6 “observations” and the mean $`s`$ is 0.17 with a standard deviation of 0.06, therefore although the scatter has undoubtedly decreased, at 1$`\sigma `$ this is consistent with the observed scatter. One could further argue that the lack of detection of any extra scatter is the result of considering also stars which have a very poor Li abundance determination. If we, somewhat arbitrarily, select only the stars for which the error on A(Li) is less than 0.2 dex we are left with only 4 stars. The mean A(Li) is 2.31, not significantly changed, and the dispersion is slightly larger: 0.22 dex. A Monte Carlo simulation with 4 “stars” provides a mean standard deviation, over 10000 samples, of the four “observations” $`<s>=0.12`$ with a standard deviation of 0.05 dex. Now an excess dispersion is detected, but at $`2\sigma `$ only. At three $`\sigma `$ there is no evidence of extra dispersion. One could claim that the existence of “intrinsic dispersion” is implied by the observation of SH 18 and SH 21, whose Li abundance differs by 0.53 dex. In fact the two measures are compatible at 2.7 $`\sigma `$. We may obtain an estimate of how likely this is by looking at the Monte Carlo simulation: out of 10000 samples in four realizations the two “stars” differ by more than this amount (in fact on one occasion they differ by 0.65 dex). This is a small probability; however whether one considers this negligible or not must depend also on other information.

If we perform the corrections due to standard depletion and NLTE, as described in Bonifacio et al. (2002), the scatter in the data is diminished by very little (0.19 dex rather than 0.20). However the mean A(Li) is now 2.36. This value is in good agreement with the Li abundance of field stars (Bonifacio, 2001) and of TO stars in NGC 6397 (Bonifacio et al., 2002). The purpose of adopting the $`V,T_{eff}`$ calibration was to make a direct comparison between M92 and NGC6397, however the dispersion is not decreased by the adoption of this temperature scale, in fact the Li abundances of Boesgaard et al. (1998) have a scatter of 0.20 dex on the King (1993) scale and 0.19 dex on the Carney (1983) scale, essentially the same as found using the $`V,T_{eff}`$ scale. Performing a Monte Carlo simulation using 6 “observations” with the errors of Boesgaard et al. (1998) I obtain a mean $`s`$ of 0.12 dex with a standard deviation of 0.05 dex for the King (1993) scale and 0.13 dex with a standard deviation of 0.05 dex for the Carney (1983) scale. In this case extra dispersion is detected at 1$`\sigma `$ in both cases, but in neither case at $`2\sigma `$. The lower scatter is due to the smaller errors adopted by Boesgaard et al. (1998) with respect to mine for several stars. This is odd, since Boesgaard et al. (1998) add quadratically the errors due to equivalent widths and effective temperatures, whereas I consider only the error due to the equivalent widths. Therefore, my errors should be, if anything, smaller. The only possible explanation is that there are some typographical errors in table 2 of Boesgaard et al. (1998). To check this I computed the curve of growth using a model with $`T_{\mathrm{eff}}`$= 5951 K, which is adopted by Boesgaard et al. (1998) for SH 46 on the King (1993) scale. This is given in Table 3. From this table it can be seen that an error of 0.74 pm in equivalent width, around an equivalent width of 2.87 pm induces an error of 0.14 dex on the Li abundance. The error given in Table 2 of Boesgaard et al. (1998) is 0.040 for the King (1993) scale and I think it is likely to be a typographical error.

## 3 Conclusions

From this reanalysis of existing data of M92 I conclude that there is no strong support for an intrinsic dispersion in Li abundances; however, a dispersion of the order of 0.18 dex would go unnoticed with the present errors. The mean Li abundance is in good agreement with that found for field stars and for TO stars of NGC 6397, which has a metallicity comparable to that of M92. I believe that the simplest hypothesis is that Li is constant in M92 and at the level of the Spite plateau. However, the main purpose of this note is to encourage observers to obtain spectra with higher S/N ratio in order to check if this is really the case. It is clear that statistical analysis and Monte Carlo simulations cannot make up for inadequate observations. The presently-available observations of M 92 cannot prove nor disprove the existence of an “intrinsic” dispersion. In particular, if SH 80 is really Li-depleted, it would be the first Li-depleted dwarf so-far detected in a metal-poor globular cluster and could testify in favour of Li-depletion mechanisms in metal-poor dwarfs. It is also obvious that an instrument like HIRES cannot tackle the problem without a prohibitive investment of telescope time. The new generation of medium resolution spectrographs operating on 8m telescopes, like ESI at Keck (Epps & Miller, 1998), or proposed, like AVES for VLT (Pallavicini et al., 2000), have the capability to solve the problem. For example, ESI, with an entrance slit of 0$`\stackrel{}{.}`$3 which projects to 1.95 pixels, provides a resolving power of 0.032 nm per resolution element, which does not fully resolve the Li doublet, but is enough to measure an accurate equivalent width. There is no exposure time calculator for ESI, but a V=10.55 star provides 56650 $`e^{}\mathrm{nm}^1\mathrm{s}^1`$; scaling this number for a V=18.278 star (SH 80) one obtains 46 $`e^{}\mathrm{nm}^1\mathrm{s}^1`$, therefore in one hour of exposure the S/N $`73`$ per resolution element. Assuming one can reach a S/N $`140`$ adding 4 one hour exposures the Cayrel formula (Cayrel, 1988) provides an error on the equivalent width of 0.24 pm, i.e. comparable to what was obtained by Bonifacio et al. (2002) for the much brighter stars in NGC 6397. AVES has been proposed for the VLT and could not obviously observe M92; however the design of AVES can easily be modified for a different telescope and its performances without adaptive optics would be similar to those of ESI and better with adaptive optics. Therefore it is from these medium resolution spectrographs that we must expect accurate abundances for TO stars in Galactic Globular Clusters in the near future.

###### Acknowledgements.

This work was done while I was at the Observatoire de Paris-Meudon as a visitor. R. Cayrel, M. Spite and F. Spite are warmly thanked for many helpful discussions. I am grateful to the referee, P.E. Nissen, for pointing out the need for a colour–colour transformation valid for metal-poor stars. This research was done with support from the italian MURST/MIUR COFIN2000 grant “Spettroscopia e studio dei processi fisici del Sole e delle stelle di tipo solare” (P.I. G. Peres)


format: text

text:
# 1 Introduction

## 1 Introduction

The NuTeV collaboration studied $`\nu _\mu `$ Deep Inelastic Scattering ($`\nu DIS`$), and measured $`\mathrm{sin}^2\theta _W`$ on-shell, or $`m_W^2/m_Z^2`$, to be $`\mathrm{sin}^2\theta _W=0.2276\pm 0.0013(\mathrm{stat})\pm 0.0006(\mathrm{syst})\pm 0.0006(\mathrm{theo})`$ . This is $`3\sigma `$ from the world average $`\mathrm{sin}^2\theta _W=0.2226\pm 0.0004`$. Is this the long-awaited harbinger of New Physics? Neutrino $`DIS`$ is a notoriously difficult environment in which to do precision physics—is the discrepancy an overlooked Standard Model (SM) effect?

Various explanations for this discrepancy have been put forward . In ref. , we considered electroweak corrections, QCD effects, new physics in loops and new physics at tree level.

## 2 New Physics?

It is difficult to saturate the NuTeV discrepancy with new physics in loops; an $`O(1\%)`$ effect is needed at NuTeV where $`Q^220`$ GeV2, but the new physics must not disrupt the part-per-mil agreement between the SM and precision tests. We found in  that oblique corrections, motivated versions of the MSSM and modified $`Z`$ couplings 111Some authors  have reconsidered models where neutrinos mix with heavy singlets, thereby reducing their couplings with the $`Z`$ and $`W`$ bosons by a factor $`1ϵ`$ and $`1ϵ/2`$ respectively. However, $`ϵ>0`$ reduces the NuTeV anomaly at the price of worsening the global fit . (Our equations differ from those of  because we place $`ϵ`$ in different electroweak parameters.) cannot separately explain the whole NuTeV-LEP discrepancy. It has been observed in  that oblique corrections induced by new physics, and modified $`Z`$ couplings, can fit all the data 222Bernstein, in these proceedings, has a different interpretation of  or . .

New tree-level physics offers more promising explanations. A $`1\%`$ decrease with respect to the SM of the coefficient of the operator $`(\overline{\nu }_\mu \gamma ^\alpha \nu _\mu )(\overline{q_L}\gamma _\alpha q_L)`$ is required, and could be provided by a new $`Z^{}`$ boson, or by SU(2) triplet leptoquarks with judiciously chosen unequal masses. A new $`Z^{}`$ must have negligeable mixing with the $`Z`$ to satisfy the oblique parameter and precision bounds on the Z coupling: . However, a $`Z^{}`$ coupled to $`e.g.`$ $`B3L_\mu `$ would provide the required four fermion operator at tree level. (It would also induce the operator $`(\overline{\nu }_\mu \gamma ^\alpha \nu _\mu )(\overline{q_R}\gamma _\alpha q_R)`$; this is acceptable because the coefficient 333 This coefficient has the wrong sign in the plots of ; the $`Z^{}`$ has vector couplings so makes a negative contribution to both $`g_L^2`$ and $`g_R^2`$. We thank Birgit Eberle for bringing this to our attention.  of this operator is measured less accurately by NuTeV. ) The $`Z^{}`$ could have $`m_Z^{}>600`$ GeV for $`g^{}1`$, or if the coupling is small $`g^{}10^3`$, it could have 2 GeV $`<m_Z^{}<`$ 10 GeV consistently with all experimental constraints. A $`Z^{}`$ with $`m3`$GeV could fit the current $`g2`$ discrepancy .

## 3 Back to the Standard Model

The NuTeV experiment measures the ratio of “short” (= muonless) to “long” (with a $`\mu `$) events for incident $`\nu _\mu `$ and $`\overline{\nu }_\mu `$ beams. From this they extract the ratios $`R^\nu `$ and $`R^{\overline{\nu }}`$, where $`R^\nu =\sigma (\nu N\nu X)/\sigma (\nu N\mu X)`$ . $`R^\nu `$ is more sensitive than $`R^{\overline{\nu }}`$ to $`\mathrm{sin}^2\theta _W`$, so $`\mathrm{sin}^2\theta _W`$ is determined mainly from $`R^\nu `$, after an effective “charm mass” is extracted from $`R^{\overline{\nu }}`$. NuTeV uses leading order (LO) parton distribution functions (pdfs), which are fit to their data, they assume isospin symmetry ($`u^p(x)=d^n(x)`$), and that $`q(x)=\overline{q}(x)`$ for second generation quarks.

A theoretically cleaner ratio, where we studied the effects of isospin violation and $`s\overline{s}`$ is the Paschos-Wolfenstein ratio (related to $`R^\nu `$ and $`R^{\overline{\nu }}`$) :

$`R_{PW}`$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\sigma (\nu N\nu X)\sigma (\overline{\nu }N\overline{\nu }X)}{\sigma (\nu N\mu X)\sigma (\overline{\nu }N\overline{\mu }X)}}`$ (1)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\mathrm{sin}^2\theta _W+\left[(1.3+O(\alpha _s))(u^{}d^{}s^{})\right],`$
where the 1.3 is a simplification (see ). The square brackets contain the corrections that arise if isospin is violated, or if there is a momentum asymmetry in the strange sea: $`s^{}0`$, where $`s^{}=𝑑xx(s(x)\overline{s}(x))`$.

Most pdf fits assume $`s^{}=0`$. This was not imposed in ref.  (BPZ), who performed a NLO fit to all the cross section data available (this did not include CCFR and NuTeV). They found that $`s^{}.002`$ was a significantly better fit ($`\mathrm{\Delta }\chi ^2=25`$ for 2 additional d.o.f.) than $`s^{}=0`$. Naively substituting this into eqn. 1, one finds that $`\mathrm{sin}^2\theta _W|_{NuTeV}\mathrm{sin}^2\theta _W|_{LEP}`$ decreases to less than two $`\sigma `$. Realistically, the effect of $`s^{}`$ on $`\mathrm{sin}^2\theta _W`$ will be reduced by experimental cuts and sensitivities. NuTeV has published a LO $`s\overline{s}`$ fit to their dimuon data , and found $`s^{}`$ negative. It is unclear whether the NuTeV dimuon data is consistent with the CDHSW cross-section data, which inconjunction with BCDMS, drives $`s^{}`$ positive in the BPZ fit; a refit to all the data would be required to determine this. However, the NuTeV analysis  had various peculiar features, as outlined in the (post-publication) note added to . After the appearance of , NuTeV pointed out  that according to their analysis , the asymmetry had the wrong sign to reduce the $`\mathrm{sin}^2\theta _W`$ discrepancy: $`s^{}.0027\pm .0013`$. They have recently redone their $`s\overline{s}`$ analysis at NLO, and find a positive asymmetry $`s^{}.0003`$. These determinations are affected by a theoretical uncertainty which is not included in the quoted error. A more detailed discussion of the NuTeV $`s^{}`$ extraction can be found in the “note added” to .

$`R_{PW}`$ is theoretically attractive because the parton distributions cancel out of the ratio at LO, and the NLO corrections are small. However, the $`R^\nu `$, $`R^{\overline{\nu }}`$ ratios measured by NuTeV have some dependence on the pdfs, which is exacerbated by asymmetries between charged-current and neutral-current, or between $`\nu `$ and $`\overline{\nu }`$ events. Such asymmetries could be induced by experimental cuts and by different $`\nu `$, $`\overline{\nu }`$ spectra. It is therefore difficult to estimate the size of the NLO corrections to the $`\mathrm{sin}^2\theta _W`$ determination from NuTeV, particularily since NuTeV fit their LO pdfs to their data, which could absorb some of the NLO effects. A NLO analysis of the NuTeV experiment would be a welcome solution to these concerns.


text:
# What Can Be Learned with a Lead-Based Supernova-Neutrino Detector?

## 1 Introduction

The idea of detecting supernova neutrinos is exciting because although galactic supernovae are rare, we could potentially learn a great deal from the neutrinos. Measuring their spectra would give us information about the mass of the proto-neutron star core and its equation of state, and provide input for supernova explosion calculations. In addition, we can add to what we’ve learned about neutrino oscillations from solar, atmospheric, reactor, and accelerator neutrinos. In this paper, we analyze the capabilities of a detector based on lead  that can see both electrons from charged-current neutrino interactions and neutrons from charged- or neutral-current interactions, e.g. a detector containing lead perchlorate .

Supernova-neutrino detection differs from solar-neutrino detection. Supernova neutrinos have a higher average energy, and an intense flux for a very short period, $`10\mathrm{s}`$. Calculations of neutrino diffusion in the proto-neutron star show that neutrinos emitted as $`\mu `$ and $`\tau `$ types have higher average energies, $`E_{\nu _{\mu ,\tau }}=1625\mathrm{MeV}`$, than those emitted as electron or anti-electron types, which have $`E_{\nu _e}11\mathrm{MeV}`$ and $`E_{\overline{\nu }_e}13\mathrm{MeV}`$ respectively. The energy distributions can be fit to Fermi-Dirac spectra, although some calculations show that they differ from Fermi-Dirac form on their tails . This has been discussed extensively in . The interesting supernova physics conveyed by neutrinos lies in the details of the energy distributions, acquired as the neutrinos are emitted from the supernova core. Neutrino oscillations will mix the spectra in the outer envelope of the supernova.

Recent data from the Sudbury Neutrino Observatory (SNO) and Superkamiokande (SuperK) have demonstrated that neutrinos oscillate, implying that they have mass. SuperK indicates that atmospheric $`\mu `$ neutrinos oscillate into objects that are not electron neutrinos, with $`\delta m_{\mathrm{atmos}}^23\times 10^3\mathrm{eV}^2`$ and a mixing angle of $`\mathrm{sin}^22\theta _{\mathrm{atmos}}1`$ . Although it has long been known that the flux of electron neutrinos from the sun is smaller than expected, SNO has very recently used its sensitivity to neutral-current scattering to measure the total flux from all species of neutrinos. The flux is approximately the same as predicted by the standard solar model , confirming that the electron neutrinos are oscillating into some combination of $`\mu `$ and $`\tau `$ neutrinos . The signal favors the large-mixing-angle (LMA) solution to the solar-neutrino problem, corresponding to mixing parameters $`\delta m_{\mathrm{solar}}^210^5\mathrm{eV}^2`$ and $`\mathrm{sin}^22\theta _{\mathrm{solar}}0.8`$. The LMA will be tested by the reactor experiment KamLAND .

If all these results are cast in the form of 3-neutrino mixing, then there is still an unknown mixing angle, which is currently limited by reactor neutrino data to be
$`\mathrm{sin}^22\theta _{\mathrm{reactor}}\stackrel{<}{}0.1`$ . The LSND experiment  complicates the picture, requiring a singlet neutrino or CPT violation in the neutrino sector . The oscillation parameters inferred from the solar and atmospheric results imply that neutrinos will change flavor in the outer envelope of a supernova. The details of the transformation depend on a) the unknown mixing angle $`\theta _{\mathrm{reactor}}`$ and b) whether there are more than three species of neutrino, as implied by the combination of atmospheric, solar and LSND results.

Several existing facilities can detect supernova neutrinos. If a supernova exploded 10 kpc from the earth with a luminosity of $`3\times 10^{53}`$ ergs and the energy partitioned equally among neutrino flavors, SuperK would see about 8300 events from $`\overline{\nu }_e+pn+e^{}`$ in its water detector . KamLAND would see about 330 events from the same reaction in its scintillator, and SNO would see about 360 such events in its light water component . KamLAND may be able to measure the spectrum of the high-temperature neutrinos through neutral-current neutrino-proton elastic scattering . SNO would also be able to see 80 events from $`\nu _e`$ charged-current break-up of the deuteron. This number would increase in the presence of oscillations. An additional 500 events in SNO would come from the neutral-current break-up of the deuteron , which has a low threshold. An analysis of the supernova signal in a water-Cherenkov detector and in a heavy-water detector has been conducted by in ref. . An analysis of neutrino mass limits from supernova time of flight is done in ref. .

Here we consider a detector based on, e.g. lead perchlorate ($`\mathrm{Pb}(\mathrm{ClO}_4)_2`$), first proposed by Elliott . Lead had been considered previously as a supernova detector by several groups, e.g. OMNIS  and LAND . Lead has an attractively large neutrino-scattering cross section per nucleon compared with other elements, and most of the scattering events produce neutrons . Lead perchlorate, which would be sensitive mainly to the higher-energy neutrinos, has the appealing ability to measure energy deposited by the electrons produced in charged-current reactions in coincidence with zero, one, two, or more neutrons, as well as to measure the number of neutrons emitted (in isolation) in neutral current reactions. Per kt of lead perchlorate, for the supernova described above, there would be about 378 electrons produced with one neutron and about 234 with two neutrons, if the oscillations are induced only by the large solar mixing angle and the high-energy neutrinos have a Fermi-Dirac distribution with temperature $`T=8.0\mathrm{MeV},`$ and effective chemical potential $`\eta =0`$ (see eqn. (4)). In the neutral-current channel, there would be about 105 one-neutron events and about 72 two-neutron events. These numbers come from the calculations described below.

In what follows, we investigate the supernova-neutrino signal in lead perchlorate in more detail. We discuss how the electrons produced by the charged-current scattering on lead can be used to obtain spectral information on the high-temperature neutrinos. We then examine the possibility that by using this information together with a comparison of the numbers of charged- and neutral-current events, one could distinguish among the oscillation scenarios discussed below.

In section 2 we discuss the particulars of the neutrino oscillations and what they would mean for the spectrum of electron neutrinos coming from a supernova. In section 3 we describe our calculations of the cross sections for neutrino-induced spallation of neutrons from lead via the charged and neutral currents. We compare our results to previous calculations and discuss uncertainties. In section 4 we present the results of our calculations and show how they may be used to learn about the spectra and oscillation of supernova neutrinos. Section 5 is a conclusion.

## 2 Oscillation Scenarios

Although great strides have been made recently in understanding neutrino oscillations, there are still unknown entries in the neutrino mixing matrix. The mixing matrix can be written as

$$\left[\begin{array}{cc}\nu _e& \\ & \\ \nu _\mu & \\ & \\ \nu _\tau & \end{array}\right]=\left[\begin{array}{ccc}c_{12}c_{13}& s_{12}c_{13}& s_{13}e^{i\delta }\\ & & \\ s_{12}c_{23}c_{12}s_{23}s_{13}e^{i\delta }& c_{12}c_{23}s_{12}s_{23}s_{13}e^{i\delta }& s_{23}c_{13}\\ s_{12}s_{23}c_{12}c_{23}s_{13}e^{i\delta }& c_{12}s_{23}s_{12}c_{23}s_{13}e^{i\delta }& c_{23}c_{13}\end{array}\right]\left[\begin{array}{cc}\nu _1& \\ & \\ \nu _2& \\ & \\ \nu _3& \end{array}\right]$$
(1)
where $`c_{ij}=\mathrm{cos}\theta _{ij}`$ and $`s_{ij}=\mathrm{sin}\theta _{ij}`$, $`\theta _{ij}`$ are the rotation angles, the subscripts $`1,2,3`$ denote the mass eigenstates of the neutrinos, and $`\delta `$ is the CP-violating phase. In combining the solar and atmospheric data into a single 3 by 3 mixing matrix, one typically associates $`\delta m_{21}^2=m_2^2m_1^2\delta m_{\mathrm{solar}}^210^5\mathrm{eV}^2`$. The mass-squared difference associated with atmospheric neutrinos is $`\delta m_{23}^2\delta m_{\mathrm{atmos}}^23\times 10^3\mathrm{eV}^2`$. The relation $`\delta m^2=0`$ makes it clear that $`\delta m_{13}^23\times 10^3\mathrm{eV}^2`$. What is not clear is the sign of $`\delta m_{23}^2`$, since the vacuum oscillation of atmospheric neutrinos is independent of the sign. As a consequence the sign of $`\delta m_{31}^2`$ is unknown as well. This has important implications for supernova neutrino oscillations, since, depending on the last sign, either electron neutrinos or electron antineutrinos will undergo a resonance associated with $`\delta m_{31}^2`$. The MSW effect, unlike vacuum oscillations, depends on the sign of the mass difference. The sign of $`\delta m_{21}^2`$ is determined by the requirement that matter-enhanced oscillations in the sun cause a resonance in the $`\nu _e`$ rather than the $`\overline{\nu }_e`$ channel.

By finding the vacuum survival probabilities of electron and muon neutrinos, one can further associate $`\mathrm{sin}^22\theta _{\mathrm{atmos}}=\mathrm{sin}^22\theta _{23}\mathrm{cos}^4\theta _{13}\mathrm{sin}^22\theta _{23}`$ and translate the limit on the electron neutrino mixing angle from reactor experiments to $`\mathrm{sin}^22\theta _{13}<0.1`$. Finally, one associates $`\mathrm{sin}^22\theta _{\mathrm{solar}}`$ with $`\mathrm{sin}^22\theta _{12}`$.

What are the consequences of the above analysis for supernova neutrinos? In the 3 by 3 mixing scheme there are two densities at which resonances can occur . In some cases, shock propagation  and nonaxisymmetric explosions  will cause the neutrinos to encounter their resonance density more than once and thus cause time-dependent features in the profile. Here we consider the problem in the first couple of seconds after the explosion, before the shock has had a chance to propagate to the point where the neutrinos may undergo a particular resonance twice.

At these relatively early times, there are two main resonances through which the electron neutrinos will propagate. The densities at which the resonances occur are set by the $`\delta m^2`$’s and the energies of the neutrinos. For a given density, the energy that a neutrino must have to undergo a resonant transformation is given by

$$E_{\mathrm{res}}(r)\pm \frac{\delta m^2\mathrm{cos}2\theta _v}{V(r)},$$
(2)
where the potential is $`V(r)2\sqrt{2}G_F\left[N_e^{}(r)N_{e^+}(r)\right]`$.

The $`\delta m_{13}^2`$ resonance: The sign of $`\delta m_{\mathrm{solar}}^2`$ is fixed by the solution to the solar neutrino problem. However, as noted above, the sign of $`\delta m_{13}^2`$ is still unknown. In a “normal hierarchy” ($`\delta m_{13}^2>0`$), electron neutrinos, as opposed to antineutrinos, would undergo a resonance at a density of about $`10^3\mathrm{g}\mathrm{cm}^3`$. (This is for a 40 MeV neutrino and a mass scale $`\delta m_{13}^23\times \mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}10}^3\mathrm{eV}^2`$.) If the resonance were adiabatic, which would be the case if $`\mathrm{sin}^22\theta _{13}10^3`$ (see fig. 1), then the original electron neutrinos would become mostly $`\nu _3`$, which would be measured in the detector as part $`\nu _\mu `$ and part $`\nu _\tau `$. The original $`\nu _e`$ would therefore be seen primarily in the neutral current events. The electron neutrinos would almost all acquire the high-temperature spectrum of the original $`\nu _\mu `$ or $`\nu _\tau `$. The $`\nu _3`$ would not mix with the other species again in the supernova, so the electron neutrinos would retain the “hot” spectrum as they arrive at the earth.

The $`\delta m_{12}^2`$ resonance : If the electron neutrinos didn’t transform at the density associated with $`\delta m_{13}^2`$, which would imply $`\mathrm{sin}^22\theta _{13}10^3`$, they would have a second opportunity at a lower density, $`1\mathrm{g}\mathrm{cm}^3`$, which is associated with $`\delta m_{\mathrm{solar}}^210^5\mathrm{eV}^2`$. We assume that this resonance is adiabatic, as implied by the presupernova model profiles of . Then the electron neutrinos as they would be measured as they arrive at the earth would have $`\mathrm{sin}^2\theta _{\mathrm{solar}}`$ of the original $`\nu _e`$ spectrum together with $`\mathrm{cos}^2\theta _{\mathrm{solar}}`$ of the original $`\nu _{\mu ,\tau }`$ spectrum. The number of charged-current events in the detector would therefore be $`\mathrm{sin}^2\theta _{\mathrm{solar}}`$ times the number of events expected with only the lower-temperature spectrum and $`\mathrm{cos}^2\theta _{\mathrm{solar}}`$ times the number of events expected with the higher-temperature spectrum. The spectrum could be further modified by the earth-matter effect if the neutrinos travelled through the earth before reaching the detector.

We do not consider scenarios intermediate between those just described, i.e. a partially adiabatic first resonance, with partial transformation. In other words, as fig. 1 shows, we are considering situations where $`\mathrm{sin}^22\theta _{13}10^3`$ or $`\mathrm{sin}^22\theta _{13}10^3`$.

Inverted hierarchy: So far we have assumed a normal hierarchy where the third mass eigenstate is the heaviest. An “inverted” hierarchy occurs when this state is the lightest. This would cause a resonance to occur in the electron antineutrino channel at the higher density resonance associated with $`\delta m_{13}^2`$. Since a lead-based detector sees very few $`\overline{\nu }_e`$’s, the inverted hierarchy would produce nearly the same signal from lead in OMNIS or LAND as the normal hierarchy with very small $`\theta _{13}`$.

We limit our discussion to the situation where there is relatively little earth matter effect and are no sterile neutrinos.

## 3 Calculations

In this work we assume a Fermi-Dirac distribution for the high-energy neutrino component. The number flux of neutrinos is given by

$$d\mathrm{\Phi }_\nu (E_\nu )=\frac{L_\nu }{4\pi r^2}\frac{1}{E_\nu }f(E_\nu )dE_\nu $$
(3)
where

$$f(E_\nu )=\frac{1}{T_\nu ^3F_2(\eta )}\frac{E_\nu ^2}{\mathrm{exp}(E_\nu /T_\nu \eta )+1}$$
(4)
and $`E_\nu =T_\nu F_3(\eta )/F_2(\eta )`$. The functions $`F_2`$ and $`F_3`$ are the Fermi integrals

$$F_n=_0^{\mathrm{}}\frac{x^ndx}{\mathrm{exp}(x\eta )+1}$$
(5)
We will assume equipartition of energy between the six neutrinos and antineutrinos, and vary the values of $`T`$ and $`\eta `$. Because the total energy in each species is fixed, if the average neutrino energy rises, the number flux of neutrinos decreases.

To calculate the event rate from supernova neutrinos we also need to know the cross sections of the charged- and neutral-current reactions of interest :

$`\nu _e+^{208}\mathrm{Pb}`$ $``$ $`{}_{}{}^{207}\mathrm{Bi}+n+e^{}`$ (6)
$`\nu _e+^{208}\mathrm{Pb}`$ $``$ $`{}_{}{}^{206}\mathrm{Bi}+2n+e^{}`$ (7)
$`\nu _x+^{208}\mathrm{Pb}`$ $``$ $`{}_{}{}^{207}\mathrm{Pb}+n`$ (8)
$`\nu _x+^{208}\mathrm{Pb}`$ $``$ $`{}_{}{}^{206}\mathrm{Pb}+2n`$ (9)
Of course, only half of natural lead is 208Pb, but the cross sections from the other isotopes should not be very different because the thresholds are the same to within a couple of MeV and the strength distributions depend largely on collective nuclear motion that is not much affected by the addition or removal of a few nucleons. The reaction rates in the other isotopes can be calculated through slight modifications to the methods described below.

Even in 208Pb, these cross sections have not yet been measured. We therefore must rely on theoretical predictions. The cross section for a neutrino with energy $`E_\nu `$ to create an electron with energy $`E_e`$ is

$$\sigma (E_\nu ,E_e)=\frac{G^2}{2\pi }\mathrm{cos}^2\theta _Cp_eE_e\delta (E_\nu E_eE_{fi})_1^1d(\mathrm{cos}\theta )M_\beta ,$$
(10)
where $`G\mathrm{cos}\theta _C`$ is the effective weak coupling constant, $`\theta `$ is the angle between the directions of the incident neutrino and the outgoing electron, $`p_e`$ is the outgoing electron momentum, and $`E_{fi}`$ is the excitation energy of the 208Bi with respect to the ground state of 208Pb. The quantity $`M_\beta `$ is a combination of matrix elements operators of the form $`j_l(qr)Y_l(\mathrm{\Omega })\tau _+`$, $`j_l(qr)Y_l(\mathrm{\Omega })\stackrel{}{\sigma }\tau _+`$, $`j_l(qr)Y_l(\mathrm{\Omega })\stackrel{}{}\tau _+`$, and $`j_l(qr)Y_l(\mathrm{\Omega })\stackrel{}{\sigma }\stackrel{}{}\tau _+`$ (these include the usual Fermi and Gamow-Teller operators in the long-wavelength approximation) where $`\tau _+`$ changes a neutron into a proton and $`q|\stackrel{}{q}|`$ is the momentum transferred to the nucleus, which ends up as 208Bi.

Our calculations are based on the coordinate-space Skyrme-Hartree-Fock method in a 20 fm box, followed by the $`A`$\- and $`B`$-matrix version of RPA with the same Skyrme interaction in the basis of Hartree-Fock states. We actually do the calculations twice, using two different sets of expressions () for $`M_\beta `$ as well as two different Hartree-Fock and RPA codes. For $`T=8`$, $`\eta =0`$ neutrinos, the cross sections from the two versions differ only by 8% when one neutron is emitted and 4% when two are emitted. We include all multipoles up to $`J=4`$. (The contributions of higher multipoles are smaller at these neutrino energies.) We truncate the Hartree-Fock spectrum at a value high enough to contain most of the strength; increasing it by a few MeV produces almost no change. In particular, the configuration space used is large enough to satisfy both the non-energy-weighted and the energy-weighted sum rules. We reduce the value of the axial-vector coupling constant $`g_A`$ from 1.26 to 1 in the $`1^+`$ channel to account for spin-quenching (this may still be a slight overestimate for lead; see ref. ). Finally, we treat the Coulomb interaction of the outgoing electron with the final nucleus as in ref. . (We comment on the procedure for the Coulomb corrections below.)

An amount of energy $`E_{fi}=E_\nu E_e`$ is transferred to the nucleus, so that a number of nuclear states can be excited. Much of the cross section is in giant resonances, e.g. the Gamow-Teller (GT) resonance, 15.6 MeV above the ground state of 208Bi, and the dipole and spin-dipole resonances, which make up a broad peak centered about 25 MeV above the ground state. It’s important for calculations to reproduce these resonances; an error of a few MeV can make about 20$`\%`$ difference in the flux-averaged cross sections . In our RPA calculations we used two Skyrme forces, the venerable SIII  and the force SkO’  with the “time-odd” terms in the energy functional explicitly adjusted to reproduce GT strength distributions as described in ref. ; we refer to the latter as SkO+. The interactions both correctly locate the isobaric analog state and GT centroid to within an MeV, put the dipole and spin-dipole strength in the right region, and give similar results more generally. Fig. 2 shows the total cross sections from the two as a function of energy. They are nearly identical except at high energies that contribute little to the supernova-neutrino flux.

For neutral current cross sections, eq. (10) still holds provided the outgoing electron is replaced by a neutrino or antineutrino (the quantity $`M_\beta `$ contains different coefficients, and isn’t corrected for Coulomb effects). We again quench all matrix elements in the $`1^+`$ channel by $`(1/1.26)^2`$, and assume that the nucleon carries no isoscalar (i.e. strange) axial current. Our calculation here follows the same steps as in the charged-current channel except that we use the like-particle RPA instead of the charge-changing RPA.

We want to calculate the individual cross sections for the emission of 0, 1, or 2 neutrons. Following ref. , we do so by assuming that two or more neutrons are emitted if the excitation energy of the final nucleus is more than 2.2 MeV above two-neutron-emission threshold, and one neutron if it’s less than that but greater than the 100 keV above one-neutron-emission threshold. For high-energy supernova neutrinos, the $`1^+`$ excitations in charged-current reactions are usually associated with the emission of one neutron and the dipole and spin-dipole states with the emission of two. For example, with a neutrino flux characterized by $`T=8`$, $`\eta =0`$ — typical predicted values for the hot spectrum — the $`1^+`$ states contribute 53% of the one-neutron cross section and only 5% of the two neutron cross section. The dipole and spin-dipole states ($`0^{}`$, $`1^{}`$, and $`2^{}`$) contribute 62% of the two-neutron cross section but only 15% for one-neutron emission.

Our results are nearly identical with those in ref.  and are close to those of ref. ; the total cross sections as a function of energy agree to within $`2030\%`$ in the charged-current channel and 15% in the neutral-current channel. They are considerably smaller, however than those of ref. , as noted in refs. . Although ref.  uses a different nuclear model, the reasons for the difference in cross sections are more basic. Ref.  pointed to the neglect of terms beyond lowest order in the long-wavelength expansions of the multipole operators in $`M_\beta `$, and to a different treatment of Coulomb corrections. The former increases the cross sections (compared to ours) dramatically, while the latter reduces them somewhat, but still leaves them too large.

We have treated the Coulomb corrections the same way as in ref. : at each electron energy we take the smaller of the results with a simple Fermi function and the effective momentum approximation . This procedure almost certainly overestimates the cross section a little as well, but not badly . We also tried the procedure of ref. : assuming that the outgoing electron was always in an s-wave and correcting its wave function according to the tables of ref. , which contain the effects of a Fermi function for a spherical charge distribution with nonzero radius. This prescription, which typically underestimates Coulomb effects at high electron energies, reduces the total cross section at $`T=8`$, $`\eta =0`$ by about 20%. We give our results in tabular form (with the first Coulomb prescription and the force SIII) in Table 1.

How accurate are our calculations? The good agreement between the two quite different Skyrme forces and between our calculations and those of refs.  is encouraging. It is possible, however, that all such calculations contain similar mistakes. They are all done in the RPA, and they all treat Coulomb effects in a similar way. There may be systematic nuclear structure uncertainties, related, e.g., to the issue of quenching of forbidden multipoles in charge-exchange reactions, that no data accurately address. It’s hard to assert, especially without a more detailed comparison to available data from hadronic charge-exchange and electron-scattering experiments, that the cross sections are accurate to better than 25% for high-temperature supernova-neutrinos. The average recoil energy is a much more robust quantity, however; there our two calculations typically differ by less than a few percent, and even when we change the treatment of Coulomb effects, the difference is typically less than 5 or 10%. We can probably take that range as a reasonable estimate of the uncertainty in the average energy. We will make use of this observable in the next section to show how the temperature of the supernova neutrinos can be significantly constrained.

## 4 Results

Here we use the calculations described in the previous sections to show: 1) how to use charged-current events in which an electron is emitted in coincidence with one neutron or with two neutrons to characterize the neutrino spectrum, and 2) how to use the charged- and neutral-current signal to determine what sort of oscillation has taken place.

First, we display in fig. 3 the numbers of events associated with various parameterizations of Fermi-Dirac spectra. Next we consider the electron energies. It takes a neutrino of about 18 MeV to excite lead with much probability. The observed electron energies are therefore chiefly sensitive to the high-energy tail of the neutrino spectrum. In fig. 4 we show the electron-energy spectra associated with one and two neutrons, obtained by folding the cross sections calculated with the Skyrme force SIII (which we use below unless we explicitly state otherwise) with the neutrino flux in eqs. (3-5) for $`T=8`$ MeV, $`\eta =0`$. The spectra observed in the detector will have very nearly these shapes with either partial or complete oscillations. The high thresholds associated with one- and (especially) two-neutron emission make the signal even less sensitive to the original low-temperature component of the spectrum.

If there were no oscillations at all, and all the electron neutrinos had a temperature $`T=3\mathrm{MeV}`$ and an effective chemical potential $`\eta _{\mathrm{eff}}=3`$, there would be only $``$ 92 one-neutron events and $`5`$ two-neutron events. If oscillations were to occur, these numbers would be much larger. If the transformation associated with the $`\delta m_{13}^2`$ were complete, there would be $`460`$ one-neutron events, with an average electron energy of 22.9 MeV, and $`310`$ two-neutron events, with an average energy of 26.2 MeV. If instead the oscillations were due to the resonance associated with $`\delta m_{12}^2`$ ($`\mathrm{sin}^22\theta _{\mathrm{solar}}0.75`$), the $`370`$ one-neutron events would have an energy of 22.1 MeV, hardly any different than before, and the two-neutron events would simply be reduced in number by almost exactly 25%, with little change in the spectral shape.

Because the shapes of the electron-energy spectra do not depend significantly on whether the oscillations are complete or partial, they can provide a lot of information on the original $`\mu `$/$`\tau `$-neutrino spectrum. Of course, we do not know the cross sections perfectly, so extracting the neutrino spectrum from the electron spectra is not trivial. We therefore focus on an observable that proved fairly robust against changes in the calculation: the average electron energy for one- and two-neutron events. In fig. 5 we show a few contours in a plot of the average energy as a function of the temperature and effective chemical potential, assuming a Fermi-Dirac distribution for the higher-energy component of the neutrinos. The figure shows that the higher the temperature of the neutrinos, the higher the average electron energy. The same is true of the chemical potential, particularly when it reaches 2 or 3.

To show that the calculations of average energies are not very sensitive, fig. 6 presents the results with the two different forces, SIII and SKO+. Fig. 5 shows the same plot but with more contours and only for the force SIII. The contour lines in fig. 7 show the effects of uncertainties in the calculated average energies. The figure shows the $`\pm 5\%`$ and $`\pm 10\%`$ regions for an electron spectrum with an average energy of 20 MeV emitted with one neutron, and for a spectrum with average energy 23 MeV emitted with two neutrons. Even with an uncertainty of $`\pm 10\%`$ (see the last section), the temperature can be determined to within about 1 MeV. If the average energies can be accurately measured, therefore, the temperature of the neutrino distribution can be determined well. On the other hand, if one considers only the average energies, a large range of chemical potentials is allowed (at least for $`\eta <3`$), almost independent of how well the average energy can be measured.

One might ask how much we gain by considering the one- and two-neutron contours simultaneously. We could plot the two sets on the same figure, creating a grid that would in theory allow us to determine both $`T`$ and $`\eta `$. Unfortunately the contours for the two kinds of events are nearly parallel except at large $`\eta `$, so that the such a plot may not provide a stronger constraint on the flux parameters.

In fig. 8, we plot the width of the distribution, defined as $`E_e^2E_e^2^{1/2}`$ instead of the average energy. We use $`\pm 5\%`$ and $`\pm 10\%`$ contours for a width of 12 MeV for both electrons emitted with one neutron and electrons emitted with two neutrons. This quantity, too, is not sensitive to $`\eta `$ unless $`\eta `$ is large. The $`\pm 5\%`$ and $`\pm 10\%`$ contours depend, of course, on what average energy is measured. Furthermore, a similar analysis, both here and for the average energies, may be performed with deviations from a Fermi-Dirac spectrum.

The extent to which the electron spectra are useful for determining the high-temperature component of the spectrum depends very much on the contamination from other neutrino sources. As discussed above, in the case of partial transformation, the low-temperature component of the spectrum will contribute very little to the average energies of electrons associated with two neutrons, but can make almost an MeV difference in the average energy of electrons associated with one neutron. Furthermore, if the lead perchlorate were mixed with water, interactions with Chlorine, Oxygen and Hydrogen would also occur. Oxygen and Chlorine have high thresholds for the emission of neutrons, and they also emit protons, so their event rates will be low. But if the water were 20% of the detector there would be approximately 70 events from

$$\overline{\nu }_e+pn+e^+$$
(11)
(assuming a normal hierarchy with $`\mathrm{sin}^2\theta _{12}0.75`$) per kt of lead perchlorate. These events will be difficult to distinguish from the one-neutron charged-current events on lead.

In the case of a normal hierarchy and no earth matter effect, the antineutrino signal would consist of $`\mathrm{sin}^2\theta _{12}`$ of the original $`\overline{\nu }_e`$ spectrum and $`\mathrm{cos}^2\theta _{12}`$ of the original $`\overline{\nu }_{\mu ,\tau }`$ spectrum. If a detector such as SuperKamiokande or KamLAND were operating at the time, it would be able to determine the $`\overline{\nu }_e`$ spectrum, making it possible to subtract out that component. If not, however, one might have to rely on the two-neutron signal. That by itself, though, is enough to get a good handle on the temperature of the high-temperature neutrinos, as discussed above.

We turn finally to the problem of distinguishing between two likely neutrino spectra at the detector: a completely hot spectrum associated with the normal hierarchy and complete conversion at the first resonance, and a $`75\%`$ hot, $`25\%`$ cold mixture associated with either the inverted hierarchy or very small $`\theta _{13}`$. Once the electron energy spectrum has been used to learn about the hot component of the electron-neutrino energy spectrum, we can then use the ratio of charged-current to neutral-current events to get around the problem of not knowing the distance to the supernova.

Fig. 9 shows the ratio of the number of charged-current events to the number of neutral-current events (with no electrons). Since in the charged-current reactions the neutron emission threshold is high, only high energy neutrinos cause events. Furthermore, the neutral current signal is unaffected by oscillations. Therefore, the partial-oscillation scenario results in a ratio that is about 3/4 ( or $`\mathrm{cos}^2\theta _{12}`$) of what complete oscillations yield. Clearly, to exploit this result it is essential to know the reaction cross sections precisely, i.e. to within about 10%. No calculations, including ours, are that certain but improvements in the model, e.g. through an exact treatment of Coulomb effects, and (especially) measurements of neutrino/lead cross sections could get us to that level.

If experimental work on solar neutrinos continues, then at the time a supernova explodes there may well be a detector in place that can see electron antineutrinos through the reaction $`\overline{\nu }_e+pn+e^+`$. The positron spectrum, which will closely track the incoming antineutrino distribution, could in principle be used in conjunction with lead to determine the difference between the normal and inverted hierarchies.

## 5 Conclusions

In this paper, we have analyzed the properties of a lead-based supernova-neutrino detector. The expected energy distribution of electrons emitted with one or two neutrons peaks somewhere in the low 20’s of MeV, depending on the details of the incoming neutrino spectral shape. We expect a few hundred charged- and neutral-current events per kt of lead.

We have used the Random-Phase-Approximation with effective Skyrme forces to calculate neutrino-lead cross sections. Our results are in agreement with those of refs.  and , but lower than the ones in ref. , for reasons we understand. We used two different Skyrme forces, SIII and a parameterization we call SkO+ based on the force SkO’; the average electron energies obtained with these two interactions are within a few percent of each other. Despite this good agreement, it is difficult to assess quantitatively the overall systematic uncertainties in our cross sections. We don’t know how much forbidden strength, which is particularly important in the two-neutron channel, is quenched, or even much about how it’s distributed. It’s possible, however, to improve the calculations, and additional data from neutrino scattering and electron scattering would help tremendously.

The spectra of neutrinos reaching the earth can be modified by oscillations. We have argued that in most scenarios, the electron energy spectrum can be used to determine the temperature (and perhaps the effective chemical potential) of the hot neutrino spectrum, due to neutrinos that were originally emitted as $`\nu _\mu `$ or $`\nu _\tau `$. (We find that lead has little sensitivity to the cold neutrinos originally emitted as $`\nu _e`$, or, in the charged-current channel, to antineutrinos.) With a $`\pm 5\%`$ theoretical uncertainty in the average energies of the electrons, there would be an approximately 0.5 MeV uncertainty in the temperature of the hot neutrino spectrum. This doubles if the uncertainty is $`\pm 10\%`$. These numbers are small enough so that a lead detector would provide crucial information about the proto-neutron star.

We discussed the possibility of distinguishing between the complete and partial neutrino transformation by using the ratio of charged-current to neutral-current event numbers. Although the idea works in principle, it would be hard to use now because of the uncertainty in calculated cross sections. However, it should be possible to distinguish between the case of no transformation and either partial or complete transformation. Since some degree of transformation is expected, either due to the LMA or $`\theta _{13}`$ this ability will provide an important check of our understanding of neutrino physics.

A measurement of neutrino cross sections on lead is very important. As discussed above, we need a reasonable degree of certainty in the average energies to extract information about the incoming neutrino spectrum. That certainty is even more important if we want to see whether some or all of the original electron neutrinos have oscillated. The ability to distinguish between the two would let us use supernovae to learn something about the size of $`\theta _{13}`$ or discover whether nature has chosen the normal or inverted hierarchy.

We wish to thank S. Elliott, J. Beacom, A. Murphy and D. Boyd for useful discussions. Two of us (G.C.M. and C.V.) acknowledge the European Centre for Theoretical Studies in Nuclear Physics and Related Areas (ECT\*). G.C.M. is supported by the U.S. Department of Energy under grant DE-FG02-02ER41216, and J.E. by the U.S. Department of Energy under grant DE-FG02-97ER41019.


text:
# On Measuring the Infrared Luminosity of Distant Galaxies with the Space Infrared Telescope Facility

## 1 Introduction

The evolution of the global, volume-averaged star formation rate (SFR) is currently a topic of intense interest (see, e.g., Madau et al., 1996; Steidel et al., 1999; Yan et al., 1999; Haarsma et al., 2000). Observationally, a galaxy’s SFR must be inferred from the luminosity density at wavelengths dominated by young stars, such as the ultraviolet (UV), nebular emission lines, mid–to–far infrared (IR), or radio (see, e.g., Kennicutt, 1998; Condon, 1992), and by making assumptions about the form of the IMF. Because of dust, rest–frame UV/optical indicators often underestimate the intrinsic SFR, especially for more luminous galaxies (see, e.g., Calzetti, Kinney, & Storchi–Bergmann, 1994; Calzetti, 2001; Bell, 2003). Based on the UV/optical spectral energy distributions (SEDs) and far–IR emission of distant galaxies and QSOs, dust appears to be prevalent in high–redshift objects ($`z25`$, e.g., Pettini et al., 1998; Adelberger & Steidel, 2000; Carilli et al., 2000; Papovich, Dickinson, & Ferguson, 2001; Chapman et al., 2002). Dust reprocesses the energy absorbed from the UV/optical into the mid/far–IR, and thus galaxy IR luminosities allow one to ‘balance the energy budget’ and paint a much more complete picture of star formation throughout cosmic history (see, e.g., Sanders & Mirabel, 1996; Blain et al., 1999; Flores et al., 1999).

The Space Infrared Telescope Facility (SIRTF), to be launched in 2003, offers to revolutionize our view at IR wavelengths with unprecedented sensitivity and resolution. Several cosmological surveys are being planned to obtain 24, 70, and 160µm data with the Multiband Imaging Photometer for SIRTF (MIPS; see, e.g., Lonsdale, 2001; Dickinson & Giavalisco, 2001; Rieke, 2001; Rieke et al., 2001). The combination of these three bands will span the peak of the IR SEDs and provide a fairly robust tracer of the total IR emission (e.g., Dale & Helou, 2002). However, MIPS observations will rapidly become confusion limited due to the increasing source density at faint fluxes (e.g., Xu et al. 2001; Dole, Lagache, & Puget 2002), especially for the longer wavelength data, which have lower sensitivity and resolution (MIPS resolution is roughly proportional to the bandpass central wavelength). Thus, full coverage of galaxies’ IR SEDs with accurate photometry may only be possible for relatively nearby or bright objects.

In this Letter we consider the uncertainties inherent in translating MIPS photometry into total IR fluxes in the case that object photometry is only available from the shorter wavelength bands. The relation between mid-IR and far–IR is complex. Thus we explore the connection between the 24µm data and the total IR emission from both the observational (§2) and modeling (§3) perspective, with the assumption that local galaxy SEDs are representative of high–redshift analogs (which has not been robustly demonstrated, although see Adelberger & Steidel, 2000; Elbaz et al., 2002). In §4, we investigate improving these constraints using 70µm data, the galaxy luminosity, and/or UV flux. We summarize our results in §5. Because extensive X-ray/optical/near-IR coverage will be available for the majority of deep MIPS survey regions (see references above), we assume here that galaxies with dominant AGN contributions can be rejected using the X-ray data, and that galaxies’ redshifts (spectroscopic or photometric) will be known.

## 2 Observational constraints between the mid–IR and total IR emission: the case at $`z1`$

To explore the correlation between mid–IR fluxes and the total IR flux111We define the total IR flux as the integrated emission from $`81000`$µm, i.e., $`F_{\mathrm{IR}}F(81000\mathrm{\mu m})`$, estimated using direct integration from $`8100`$µm and extrapolated to 1000µm using a $`\lambda ^1`$ emissivity. These fluxes are typically a factor of 2 larger than those of Helou et al. (1988) and 30% higher than those of Sanders & Mirabel (1996), and are consistent to within 10% with values extrapolated using 8–170µm data from IRAS and Tuffs et al. (2002). for local galaxies, we have taken data from the Infrared Astronomical Satellite (IRAS) at 12µm.       The ratio of the IRAS 12µm to total IR flux (from $`81000`$µm) as a function IRAS 100µm to 60µm flux–density ratio; see Bell (2003) for details. Symbols denote various galaxy types: starbursting galaxies (open stars); ultra–luminous IR galaxies (filled stars); normal galaxies (open circles). The error bar indicates typical uncertainties. Results for model galaxies are shown as lines (with line definitions as in figure 3).  Note that the MIPS 24µm band in the observed frame for $`z=1`$ nearly matches the rest–frame IRAS 12µm band, with a $`K`$–correction that varies weakly with galaxy SED: $`L_\nu (\mathrm{MIPS}\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}24}\mathrm{\mu m},z=1)1.3L_\nu (\mathrm{𝐼𝑅𝐴𝑆}\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}12}\mathrm{\mu m},z=0)`$.

Figure 2 shows the IRAS 12µm to total IR flux ratio as a function of IRAS 100µm to 60µm color for 156 galaxies spanning all star–forming types (Bell, 2003).222We denote the average flux density measured from a bandpass with central wavelength $`\lambda `$ as $`f_\nu (\lambda )`$, and we define the flux from the bandpass as $`F(\lambda )\nu f_\nu (\lambda )`$, where $`\nu `$ is the frequency corresponding to the wavelength $`\lambda `$. The figure illustrates that a nearly constant proportion of the total IR flux emerges in the mid-IR for local galaxies. The mean ratio is $`F(12\mathrm{\mu m})/F_{\mathrm{IR}}=0.16`$, with a $`1\sigma `$ scatter between 0.10 and 0.22. This is consistent with IRAS and ISO results, which show a relatively constant conversion between rest-frame mid-IR ($`7\mathrm{\mu m}15\mathrm{\mu m}`$) and total IR luminosities (e.g., Spingolio et al., 1995; Chary & Elbaz, 2001; Roussel et al., 2001). Clearly, in local galaxies the dust responsible for the unidentified IR bands (UIBs; most plausibly associated with polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs), e.g., Puget & Léger, 1989; Genzel & Cesarsky, 2000) that dominates the flux in the mid–IR correlates fairly well with the dust that produces the bulk of the total IR flux emission.

Importantly, figure 2 shows that the ratio of 12µm to total IR flux does not sensitively depend on the temperature of the dust that dominates at far–IR wavelengths (as measured by $`f_\nu (100\mathrm{\mu m})/f_\nu (60\mathrm{\mu m})`$): the systematic variation with dust temperature seems to be smaller than the scatter. Overlaid in the figure are the results of models from the literature with different treatments of the mid/far-IR SEDs and that span a range of dust temperatures and IR luminosities (described in §3). These models broadly reproduce the mean and scatter observed in the plot. These IRAS data suggest that if the relationship between the mid–IR and total IR emission at high–redshifts is similar to that observed locally, then the MIPS 24µm data will provide an estimate to the total IR emission for $`z1`$ galaxies. Clearly, the scatter is significant (a factor of $`2.5`$), and is largely systematic in the sense that it can only be improved upon by better constraining the shape of the galaxy IR SED.

## 3 Modeling the mid–IR to total IR emission: extending the redshift range

Here, we turn to models to test the result from §2 for a wider range of redshifts. In order to gauge the systematic model uncertainties, we explore three independently constructed sets of models. i) We use the stardust templates for 17 local galaxies with a range of IR luminosities, $`5\times 10^9L_{\mathrm{IR}}/L_{}4\times 10^{12}`$, from Devriendt, Guiderdoni, & Sadat (1999). Note that the luminosities of the seven Virgo Cluster galaxies in this model were underestimated by a factor of between 10 and 300 (J. Devriendt, 2002, private communication); this does not affect our results as we use only colors (flux ratios). ii) We have also used the fits of the grasil model of Silva et al. (1998) to six galaxies (Arp 220, M51, M82, M100, NGC 6090, NGC 6946). iii) Lastly, we use the empirical models based on local galaxy ISO data from Dale et al. (2001) with a range of far–IR flux ratios (a surrogate for dust temperature), $`0.4\mathrm{log}F(60\mathrm{\mu m})/F(100\mathrm{\mu m})0.5`$. These models apply explicitly to local galaxy SEDs, and thus the caveat persists that they may not describe high–$`z`$ galaxies.

To derive the observed–frame mid-IR flux as a function of redshift, we averaged the model galaxy SEDs with the MIPS 24µm bandpass (including effects from the filter transmission and detector response) over a range of redshifts. In figure 3, we show the ratio of the observed-frame MIPS 24µm to rest-frame total IR flux versus redshift. As expected from the initial analysis of 12µm IRAS data, the MIPS 24µm emission is a fair tracer of the total (rest-frame) IR emission, especially for the redshift range $`0.4z1.6`$, for which the scatter is a factor of $`23`$.

It is worth discussing this in somewhat more detail. At $`z0`$, the observed 24µm band traces emission from UIBs, and very small grains that have been transiently raised to high temperatures by absorption of single UV photons (Désert, Boulanger, & Puget, 1990). Model SEDs show great variation in the prominence of this component, depending largely on the relative intensity of the UV radiation field in a given galaxy. As one moves toward $`z12.5`$, the MIPS 24µm data probes lower rest–frame wavelengths where the UIBs increasingly contribute to the flux especially in discrete features from $`713`$µm (Genzel & Cesarsky, 2000, and references therein). Empirically, these UIBs are rather more prominent for ‘cooler’ galaxies with less intense UV radiation fields (causing the tracks for warmer and cooler galaxies to cross at $`z0.5`$). The ‘dip’ in 24µm-to-total IR ratio at $`z1.4`$ is attributed to gaps between the UIBs. Silva et al. (1998), Devriendt et al. (1999), and Dale et al. (2001) model the UIBs somewhat differently. The largest difference between the models at       The ratio of the observed MIPS 24 µm emission to total (rest-frame) IR emission as a function of redshift. Curves display the models described in the text (labeled in the figure inset). The arrow depicts galaxy SEDs from “Warmer” to “Colder” dust temperatures.  $`z1`$ is the contribution of the stellar continuum to the mid–IR emission. The galaxy templates match well for warm galaxies, and diverge for cooler galaxies, as Dale et al. do not have a large stellar contribution in their cold galaxies, whereas Devriendt et al. include seven Virgo Cluster galaxy templates that are dominated by stellar emission at $`\lambda 15`$µm (Boselli et al., 1998), and Silva et al. study three quiescently star–forming spirals (M100, M51, NGC 6946) that contain some stellar contribution to the mid–IR emission. Certainly, the contribution of the old stellar population to dust heating is correlated with dust temperature (see, e.g, Bell, 2003, and references therein); however, the scatter is large, leaving the issue of stellar contamination of $`\lambda 15`$µm fluxes largely open. Moreover, how these processes contribute to the IR SEDs of high–$`z`$ galaxies is almost entirely unknown.

Given this (and with the inherent assumption that distant star-forming galaxies have IR SEDs that are represented somewhere in the local Universe), one expects that at $`0.4z1.6`$ it should be possible to constrain the total IR flux to within a factor of $`23`$ using 24µm data alone: $`F(24\mathrm{\mu m})`$ represents $`525`$% of the total IR flux. Outside this redshift range, the conversion is rather less certain. A factor of $`23`$ in error in total IR flux may be quite adequate, but can potentially frustrate many scientific analyses. Because this uncertainty is largely systematic, one must include additional knowledge of the shape of the galaxy SED in order to improve the constraint on the total IR flux.

## 4 Improving the total IR emission constraints

Based on the models illustrated in figure 3, the scatter between the 24µm flux and the total IR flux emission stems primarily from a lack of knowledge on the shape of the galaxy IR SED (and/or dust temperature). MIPS       The ratio of the observed SIRTF/MIPS 24 µm emission to the total (rest–frame) IR emission as a function of MIPS 24µm/70µm flux ratio. Curves with symbols illustrate the various predictions from the models described in the text averaged over the redshift interval (as listed in the figure inset), with line styles as indicated in figure 3. The thick solid and dotted lines show a second-order polynomial fit and its standard error to the average over all model predictions and redshifts (see text).  70µm flux measurements will be available for a significant fraction of MIPS 24µm sources (although the exact fraction and redshift distribution are strongly model dependent), which should enhance the constraints on the total IR emission. Here we explore the constraints on the total galaxy IR emission in the case that only MIPS 24µm and 70µm data are available. In figure 4 we show the ratio of the observed MIPS 24µm to total IR emission versus the ratio of the observed MIPS 24 and 70µm fluxes in different redshift intervals. There is generally very little scatter in the relationship for these redshifts and colors: the ratio of the 24–to–70µm fluxes seems to correlate with dust temperature over a wide range of redshifts. To crudely parameterize the relationship between the IR fluxes in these bandpasses, we have fit a second-order polynomial to the average over all models for all redshifts shown in figure 4. We find a best fit to the equation, $`F(24\mathrm{\mu m})/F(81000\mathrm{\mu m})=A+Bx+Cx^2`$, where $`x\mathrm{log}F(24\mathrm{\mu m})/F(70\mathrm{\mu m})`$, with polynomial coefficients, $`A=0.160`$, $`B=0.135`$, and $`C=0.033`$, and a standard error of $`\delta [F(24\mathrm{\mu m})/F(81000\mathrm{\mu m})]=0.036`$. This fit and error are overlaid in figure 4. Our parameterization provides a means for quantifying the scatter in estimating the total IR flux emission using the MIPS 24 and 70µm data (although the physical relation between these fluxes and the total IR emission is of course more complicated than this simple formalism), and it spans the systematic uncertainties inherent in the model predictions and is largely independent of redshift between $`0.3z3.3`$. Therefore with both MIPS 24 and 70µm detections (and with the assumption that local galaxy IR SEDs apply to high–redshift analogs) this result suggests that the uncertainty on the total IR flux is improved by up to a factor $`6`$ (relative to that achieved using 24µm data only).

Lastly, if distant luminous IR galaxies (LIRGs; $`L_{\mathrm{IR}}>10^{11}L_{}`$) have comparable SEDs to those found locally, then it should be possible to better constrain the IR luminosity for this class of galaxy. Locally, LIRGs have “Warmer” dust temperatures (Sanders & Mirabel, 1996), thus allowing for a more robust conversion between observed 24um and total IR luminosity (adopting the warmer tracks, with less stellar contribution, in figure 3). It may be possible to classify these galaxies as LIRGs on the basis of their high IR luminosities (indeed, although model dependent, it may be the case that only LIRGs will be detectable in confusion–limited surveys for $`z1`$; e.g., Dole et al. 2002). Alternatively, many local LIRGs have low UV-to-IR ratios $`F(1550\text{Å})/F_{\mathrm{IR}}<0.02`$, which can be derived from observed-frame $`U`$-band to 24µm ratios for $`z1`$ galaxies, albeit in a model-dependent way. These conversions obviously depend sensitively on high redshift LIRGs acting in similar ways to local LIRGs, which of course must be tested using spectral observations along with 70 and 160µm photometry for the brightest galaxies.

## 5 Conclusions

SIRTF will greatly improve our understanding of the IR emission of (and hence the star–formation processes within) distant galaxies. Because deep surveys could uncover many star–forming galaxies in the shorter–wavelength MIPS data with no longer–wavelength counterparts, we have explored the efficacy of constraining the total IR galaxy emission using the data at 24µm only and the combination of 24 and 70µm (and under the assumption that ancillary optical and X-ray data are available to allow redshift estimation and AGN rejection). Assuming that distant star-forming galaxies have IR SEDs that are represented somewhere in the local Universe, the 24µm data should constrain the integrated IR flux to within a factor of 2.5: $`F(24\mathrm{\mu m})/F_{\mathrm{IR}}525`$% for galaxies with $`0.4z1.6`$. Including MIPS 70µm data, the IR luminosity can be estimated with considerably more certainty (a factor $`6`$ improvement over the uncertainties for using 24µm data only). Lastly, if one can assume that the shape of the galaxy SED is similar to local luminous IR galaxies ($`L10^{11}L_{}`$; e.g., because of high IR luminosity or low UV/IR flux ratio), then the constraints should improve.

Throughout this study we have made the explicit assumption that the relationships between the mid– and total–IR emission and the shape of the IR SEDs observed locally apply to properties of high–redshift galaxies. As a final caveat, we emphasize that for many reasons this may not be the case. Indeed, the population of IR–emitting galaxies must undergo strong evolution in order to match the cosmic IR background (Hauser & Dwek, 2001; Chary & Elbaz, 2001; Xu et al., 2001; Elbaz et al., 2002; Dole et al., 2002), and it is unclear how such evolution manifests itself. The mid–IR UIBs (e.g., PAHs) and total IR emission relation at high redshift may be different due to, e.g., a changing dust composition, or a significantly different dust heating from older stellar populations than that observed locally. Moreover, we have assumed that the shape of the IR SED as a function of IR luminosity for local galaxies applies to high–redshift analogs, which is poorly known (although not inconsistent with observations; see, e.g., Adelberger & Steidel, 2000). Only with large samples of galaxies detected in all three MIPS bands, and with spectroscopic measurements from the SIRTF Infrared Spectrograph (IRS), will these assumptions be testable. Once such constraints are established, the data should provide a prescription for relating the MIPS data to total IR fluxes. Given an estimate on the total IR luminosity, it is then possible to estimate SFR (modulo the usual sources of uncertainty; see, e.g., Kennicutt, 1998; Bell, 2003).

We wish to thank our colleagues at the Steward Observatory for stimulating conversations, in particular Hervé Dole, Rob Kennicutt, John Moustakas, Marcia Rieke, George Rieke, and J. D. Smith. We are also grateful to D. Dale, J. Devriendt, and L. Silva for providing their galaxy SEDs, and to the anonymous referee whose comments improved this work. C. P. wishes to thank G. Rieke for kindly providing support through the SIRTF project via JPL contract no. 960785. E. F. B. was supported by NASA grant NAG5-8426 and NSF grant AST-9900789.


text:
# DESY 02-146 On the price of light quarks 11footnote 1Contribution by I. Montvay to QUARKS’2002, Novgorod, Russia, June 2002

## 1 Introduction

The eightfold way of hadron spectra is the consequence of the SU(3) flavour symmetry in QCD which follows from the existence of three light quarks ($`u`$, $`d`$ and $`s`$). Numerical simulations of QCD have to take into account this basic fact. The “quenched approximation”, which corresponds to the limit of infinitely heavy virtual quarks, is not reliable because of its unknown systematic errors (see, for instance, ).

Chiral perturbation theory (ChPT)  is very useful for extrapolating the results of numerical simulations to the small $`u`$\- and $`d`$-quark masses but, of course, it has a finite range of applicability. In practice this means that one has to stay in a region where the one-loop ChPT formulas give a good approximation. For investigating the masses and couplings of pseudoscalar mesons one should reach the quark mass range below about one quarter of the strange quark mass ($`m_{ud}\frac{1}{4}m_s`$) . Present large scale QCD simulations – especially with Wilson-type quark actions – are not yet at small enough quark masses for the applicability of chiral perturbation theory. This is clearly displayed, for instance, by the absence of curvature (“no chiral logs”) in the present data about the dependence of $`m_\pi ^2`$ and $`f_\pi `$ versus the quark mass $`m_q`$ (see, for instance, ).

Going to light quark masses in unquenched QCD simulations is a great challenge for computations because known algorithms have a substantial slowing down towards small quark masses. The present status has been summarized by the contributors to the panel discussion at the Berlin lattice conference . In these contributions the computational costs were established at relatively large quark masses and extrapolated into the interesting range of small quark masses. Recent developments show, however, that at small quark masses new difficulties appear which might invalidate this extrapolation . This was the motivation of our collaboration to investigate in a series of algorithmic studies the computational cost of numerical simulations down to about one fifth of the strange quark mass ($`m_{ud}\frac{1}{5}m_s`$) . In our tests we used the two-step multi-boson algorithm .

## 2 Cost estimates

The computational cost of obtaining a new, independent gauge configuration in an updating sequence with dynamical quarks can be parametrized, for instance, as

$$C=F(r_0m_\pi )^{z_\pi }\left(\frac{L}{a}\right)^{z_L}\left(\frac{r_0}{a}\right)^{z_a}.$$
(1)
Here $`r_0`$ is the Sommer scale parameter, $`m_\pi `$ the pion mass, $`L`$ the lattice extension and $`a`$ the lattice spacing. The powers $`z_{\pi ,L,a}`$ and the overall constant $`F`$ are empirically determined.

In order to limit the necessary computer time our collaboration first performed high statistics simulations with $`N_f=2`$ degenerate quark flavours on coarse lattices ($`8^316`$) with a lattice spacing $`a0.27\mathrm{fm}`$. ($`a`$ is determined by $`r_00.5\mathrm{fm}`$ from the mesured value of $`r_0/a`$.) This gives for the space-extension $`L2.2\mathrm{fm}`$, which is sufficient for keeping finite volume effects tolerable, for instance, for $`m_\pi `$ and $`f_\pi `$. For the definition of the quark mass the dimensionless quantity

$$M_r(r_0m_\pi )^2$$
(2)
has been used, which already appears in (1). In this variable the strange quark mass can be defined as $`M_{r,strange}3.1`$.

Our results for the integrated autocorrelations of different physical quantities ($`\tau _{int}`$) have been described in detail in . For illustration see figures 1 and 2 where the quark mass dependence of $`\tau _{int}^{plaquette}`$ and $`\tau _{int}^{m_\pi }`$ are shown, together with power fits. The units for the costs are $`10^6`$ fermion-matrix-vector-multiplications (MVMs). Comparing the two figures one sees that the “cost” for $`m_\pi `$ is substantially less than the one for the average plaquette. The fitted powers of the quark mass are also different. In the notation of the formula in (1) $`\tau _{int}^{plaquette}`$ gives $`z_\pi 4`$, whereas $`\tau _{int}^{m_\pi }`$ is consistent with $`z_\pi 3`$. The pion coupling constant $`f_\pi `$, which is related to the constant in front of the pion contribution in the pseudoscalar propagator, has even shorter autocorrelations than $`m_\pi `$. This is obviously rather advantageous for obtaining physical information from the quark mass dependence of the pion mass and coupling (see ).

Our collaboration also studied the volume dependence of the cost by choosing a few $`8^316`$ runs and repeating them on either $`16^4`$ or $`12^324`$ lattices, without changing other parameters . The parameters of the chosen points are collected in table 1 and some results are shown in table 2. The error analysis and integrated autocorrelations in the runs on the larger lattices have been obtained using the linearization method of the ALPHA collaboration . The conclusion from these tests is that the cost increase with the lattice volume is quite acceptable because it is close to the trivial volume factor. In case of the autocorrelation of the pion mass the observed increase turns out to be even smaller. This is partly due to the intrinsic fluctuation present in the pion propagator which is originated from the freedom of randomly choosing the position of the source.

## 3 Chiral logs?

The behaviour of physical quantities, as for instance the pseudoscalar meson (“pion”) mass $`m_\pi `$ or pseudoscalar decay constant $`f_\pi `$ as a function of the quark mass are characterized by the appearance of chiral logarithms. These chiral logs, which are due to virtual pseudoscalar meson loops, have a non-analytic behaviour near zero quark mass of a generic form $`m_q\mathrm{log}m_q`$. They imply relatively fast changes of certain quantities near zero quark mass which are not seen in present data .

In our range of quark masses ($`m_q\frac{1}{5}m_s`$) the logarithmic curvature due to chiral logs has to appear, at least in the continuum limit. Although we have rather coarse lattices ($`a0.27\mathrm{fm}`$) and, in addition, up to now we are working with unrenormalized quantities – without the $`Z`$-factors of multiplicative renormalization – it is interesting to see whether the effects of chiral logs can already be seen in our data.

Let us recall the one-loop ChPT formulas for $`m_\pi ^2`$:

$$\frac{M_r}{2\mu _r}=Br_0\frac{M_rBr_0}{16\pi ^2(fr_0)^2}\mathrm{log}\frac{(\mathrm{\Lambda }_3r_0)^2}{M_r}+𝒪(M_r^2),$$
(3)
and for $`f_\pi `$:

$$f_\pi r_0=fr_0+\frac{M_r}{8\pi ^2fr_0}\mathrm{log}\frac{(\mathrm{\Lambda }_4r_0)^2}{M_r}+𝒪(M_r^2).$$
(4)
These are deduced from the formulas in ref. , with our convention $`f_\pi ^{physical}131\mathrm{MeV}`$. Besides $`M_r`$ defined in (1), the quark mass defined by the PCAC relation $`m_q^{PCAC}`$ also appears in the dimensionless combination

$$\mu _rm_q^{PCAC}r_0.$$
(5)
(For the definition of $`m_q^{PCAC}`$ see, for instance, the equations (20)-(23) in our paper .) The dimensionless parameters $`Br_0`$, $`fr_0`$ and $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_3r_0`$ in (3) and $`fr_0`$ and $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_4r_0`$ in (4) have to be fitted to the data.

The data from table 3 of ref.  and the one-loop ChPT fits are shown in figures 3 and 4. (The runs with label (c) and (d), which have low statistics and hence large statistical errors, are omitted here.) In both figures two fits are shown: one taking into account all points and another one where the points above $`M_r=2`$ are omitted. As the figures show, the data in the small quark mass range clearly show the expected qualitative behaviour with chiral logs. The fit parameters have reasonable values, similar to the ones deduced in  from previous lattice data at larger quark masses . For instance, the fits with all points correspond to the parameters: $`Br_0=8.2`$, $`fr_0=0.27`$, $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_3r_0=3.5`$ in formula (3) and $`fr_0=0.60`$, $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_4r_0=4.3`$ in formula (4).

The fact that our data in the small quark mass range $`\frac{1}{5}m_sm_q\frac{2}{3}m_s`$ show the expected logarithmic behaviour of chiral perturbation theory is quite satisfactory. However, since we are far from the continuum limit and we did not yet take into account the $`Z`$-factors of multiplicative renormalization, further work is needed to finally deduce the physical values of the fit parameters.

## 4 Eigenvalue spectra

The eigenvalue spectrum of the Wilson-Dirac matrix is interesting both physically and from the point of view of simulation algorithms. From the algorithmic point of view the knowledge of low-lying eigenvalues is crucial for the optimization of polynomial approximations in TSMB. An interesting question is whether there is a statistically significant presence of configurations with negative determinant, i. e. with an odd number of negative eigenvalues of the Wilson-Dirac matrix. A significant number of configurations with negative determinant would be a serious obstacle for performing numerical simulations with and odd number of flavours – as it occurs with $`u`$-, $`d`$\- and $`s`$-quarks in nature. The results of our collaboration show  that in the investigated range of quark masses no sign problem occurs because the statistical weight of configurations with negative determinant is negligible even at our smallest quark masses.

## 5 Conclusion and outlook

Our cost estimates for numerical simulations of QCD with light dynamical Wilson-quarks – as a function of the quark mass and volume – allow a reasonably precise prediction of the computational costs for future simulations. Up to now we did not yet perform a systematic investigation of the slowing down with decreasing lattice spacing, expressed by the power $`z_a`$ in (1), but previous experience in the supersymmetric Yang-Mills theory  at small lattice spacings $`a0.06\mathrm{fm}`$ and our preliminary results in QCD near $`a0.17\mathrm{fm}`$ are consistent with the expected behaviour $`z_a=2`$ .

Assuming $`z_a=2`$ and starting from the results of runs $`(h)`$ and $`(h16)`$ in table 2 one can deduce the following estimates for obtaining 100 independent gauge configurations:

* On a $`24^348`$ lattice with lattice spacing $`a=0.125\mathrm{fm}`$ at quark mass parameter $`M_r=0.8`$ corresponding to $`m_{ud}\frac{1}{4}m_s`$ and physical extension characterized by $`Lm_\pi 6`$ the cost would be $`C910^{16}310^{18}\mathrm{flop}`$, depending on whether one considers $`\tau _{int}^{m_\pi }`$ or $`\tau _{int}^{plaq}`$ as relevant.
* Similarly, on a $`32^364`$ lattice with lattice spacing $`a=0.06\mathrm{fm}`$ at the same quark mass and $`Lm_\pi 4`$ the cost would be $`C610^{17}410^{19}\mathrm{flop}`$.

Compared to most of the estimates in  these numbers are lower. Note that the costs for parameter tuning and equilibration – which are not negligible – are not included in these estimates. Nevertheless, the necessary order of magnitude of CPU times for these kinds of calculations is expected to be available for the lattice community in forthcoming years.