text:
# Distinguishing among Scalar Field Models of Dark Energy

## I Introduction

One of the standard methods of interpreting the growing body of evidence from supernovae data  and other measurements that the expansion of the Universe is accelerating, is to assume the existence of a dark energy component and to model it using scalar fields (for a recent review see fund ). This links the expansion history of the Universe to theories of fundamental physics. For example, from this perspective the value of the potential at its minimum is the cosmological constant (CC). Since at this point there are many theoretical ideas about the form of the potential but none that particularly stands out, it would have been helpful if the data from cosmological measurements, such as supernovae Ia, CMB and various others, could provide hints about some generic features of the potential.

Viable scalar field models of dark energy need to have potentials whose energy scale is about the critical density $`10^{12}\mathrm{eV}^4`$, and typical scalar field masses about the Hubble mass $`m10^{33}`$ eV. In such models typical scalar field variations are about Planck scale $`m_p10^{19}`$ GeV, and typical time scales for such variations are about the Hubble time $`1/H_010^{18}`$ sec. Whether, and how well, it is possible to determine the parameters and form of potentials and the field’s dynamical history and future from data beyond such qualitative estimates has been addressed previously Chiba ; Barger ; weller ; Ng ; Bludman ; Eriksson ; hut ; star1 ; efst . Weller and Albrecht weller  concluded that some potentials could be differentiated using SNAP-like data snap . They approximated the equation of state (EOS) of each of the models, and showed by likelihood analysis that some of the models are distinguishable. Another approach is “reconstruction” hut ; star1 ; efst . Here one rewrites the potential as a function of the luminosity-distance ($`d_L`$) and its derivatives, which are in turn functions of the redshift. The potential (and not the EOS) is approximated by a fitting function, and statistically tested against a set of accurate $`d_L`$ measurements. The efficiency of reconstruction depends on the accuracy of knowing the values of $`\mathrm{\Omega }_m`$ (this is needed also when one fits the EOS), and $`H_0`$ (this is needed only for reconstruction).

On general grounds we expect that scalar field potentials are less distinguishable than their corresponding EOS, because different potentials, with properly adjusted initial conditions for the field can produce very similar EOS.

In previous papers m1 ; m2  we have found that supernovae (SN) measurements are limited as a probe of the dark energy EOS $`w_Q`$, due to degeneracies. Specifically, it was shown that $`d_L`$’s corresponding to two different $`w_Q`$’s are degenerate if both EOS coincide at some point at a relatively low red shift, $`z^{}`$ (see also sweetspot  and astier ). The purpose of the present analysis is to explore the implications of this degeneracy on the possibility to determine the scalar field potential. For a given functional form of potential, we would like to quantify the amount by which the parameters of the potential can be varied, and still be indistinguishable by accurate SN measurements. Our criteria for indistinguishability between two models is that their resulting $`d_L`$’s differ at most by 1% up to redshift $`z=2`$, in accordance with the anticipated accuracy of future SN measurements. In addition, we would like to determine whether the functional form of the potential can be distinguished or constrained by data.

We look for degeneracies among potentials using the following procedure: For a given class of potentials, we change the parameters as well as the initial values of the field, with the constraint that $`w_Q`$ at $`z^{}`$ remains unchanged. This results in models whose $`w_Q`$ cross at $`z^{}`$. We know from our previous analysis that in this case the models tend to be degenerate. Then we evaluate numerically the differences in the $`d_L`$’s of the models to verify this.

There are additional sources of degeneracy that we do not consider here. In our procedure the value of the potential energy and the value of the kinetic energy remain unchanged. Allowing changes in the potential that are compensated by changes in the initial conditions for the kinetic energy will give another dimension of degeneracy. Variation in the value of $`\mathrm{\Omega }_m`$ is yet another degree of freedom, as is relaxing the assumption of a flat Universe and considering the effects of a clumpy Universe sps . Additionally, the value of $`z^{}`$ in different models can be shifted. We have found that $`z^{}`$ varies slowly with the red shift depth of the data set, $`z_{max}`$. The dependence is approximately linear $`z^{}=\alpha z_{max}+\beta `$ (see also linder ), $`\alpha `$ and $`\beta `$ are model dependent but $`\alpha `$ is typically small, about 0.2. And, finally, we have looked only at a class of simple potentials that have two independent parameters. Additional parameters in the potential yet again open up new degrees of freedom, each of which increases the degeneracy of each of the parameters. Since we have found that this class of simple potentials suffers from large degeneracies, we see no phenomenological justification for using more complex potentials. If a theoretical prior about the form of the potential and initial conditions can be motivated then some of this degeneracy can be removed.

## II Degeneracies of scalar field potentials

We consider a flat Universe with non-relativistic matter (dark matter included) whose EOS is $`w_m=0`$, and a dark energy component which we model by a canonically normalized and minimally coupled scalar field. Einstein’s equations for such a Universe are the following,

$`H^2=\kappa ^2\left(\rho _mx^3+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}x^2H^2\varphi ^2+V(\varphi )\right)`$ (1)
$`xHH^{}={\displaystyle \frac{3\kappa ^2}{2}}\left(\rho _mx^3+x^2H^2\varphi ^2\right)`$ (2)
$`x^2H^2\varphi ^{\prime \prime }+(x^2HH^{}2xH^2)\varphi ^{}+{\displaystyle \frac{dV}{d\varphi }}=0,`$ (3)
where $`x=1+z`$, $`\kappa ^2=\frac{8\pi }{3m_p^2}`$, $`\rho _m`$ is the matter energy density today, primes denote derivatives with respect to $`x`$, and $`V`$ is the potential of the scalar field. The scalar field’s EOS ($`w_Q`$) is given by,

$`w_Q`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{p_Q}{\rho _Q}}`$ (4)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{x^2H^2\varphi ^22V}{x^2H^2\varphi ^2+2V}}.`$
We choose a model, and vary the parameters of the potential $`P_i`$, as well as the values of the scalar field at $`z^{}`$ keeping its derivative constant,

$`\varphi (z^{})`$ $``$ $`\varphi (z^{})+\delta \varphi `$ (5)
$`V`$ $``$ $`V+\delta V(P_i,\delta P_i,\delta \varphi )`$ (6)
$`\delta \varphi ^{}(z^{})`$ $`=`$ $`\delta H(z^{})=\delta \rho _m=0.`$ (7)
These variations result in variations in eqs.(4) and (1):

$`w_Q+\delta w_Q`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{x^2H^2\varphi ^22(V+\delta V)}{x^2H^2\varphi ^2+2(V+\delta V)}}`$ (8)
$``$ $`w_Q+\left[{\displaystyle \frac{2(1+w_Q)}{x^2H^2\varphi ^2+2V}}\right]\delta V+𝒪(\delta V^2)`$
$`H^2`$ $`=`$ $`\kappa ^2\left(\rho _mx^3+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}x^2H^2\varphi ^2+(V(\varphi )+\delta V)\right).`$ (9)
In eq.(8), we have kept terms up to first order in $`\delta V`$, assuming it is small enough.

Since we know that if the values of $`w_Q(z^{})`$ are equal for two models then their luminosity-distance history is approximately degenerate, we explore part of the degeneracy in parameter space by requiring that $`\delta w_Q(z^{})`$ vanishes. In eq. (8) we ignore higher orders in $`\delta V`$, so we simply require that $`\delta V`$ vanishes to first order. On the other hand, even a small deviation from a spatially flat cosmology will be amplified by the evolution of the solution. We therefore need to require that eq. (9) holds exactly.

The two constraints we are imposing are then

$`\delta V(P_i,\delta P_i,\delta \varphi )^{(1)}=0`$ (10)
$`\delta V(P_i,\delta P_i,\delta \varphi )^{(exact)}=0.`$ (11)
This set of variations and constraints is algebraic and can often be solved analytically. The analytical solution connects any given model to a family of associated models, all of which have the same $`w_Q`$ at $`z^{}`$. The next step is to check numerically how large are the allowed parameter variations such that different models in the family are indistinguishable. 111Recall that our criterion for indistinguishable models is that their $`d_L`$’s do not differ by more than 1% in the range $`0z2`$.

Initial conditions are given at $`z^{}`$, but the evolution of each of the models towards $`z=0`$ is different, and they end up with a different value of $`H_0`$ (Hubble parameter at $`x=1`$, $`z=0`$). To ensure that all models have the same value of $`H_0`$ we rescale them,

$`\stackrel{~}{H}={\displaystyle \frac{H}{H_0}},\mathrm{\Omega }_m={\displaystyle \frac{\rho }{H_0^2m_p^2}},\stackrel{~}{\varphi }={\displaystyle \frac{\varphi }{m_p}},\stackrel{~}{V}={\displaystyle \frac{V}{H_0^2m_p^2}}.`$ (12)
Equation (1) can be reexpressed in terms of the rescaled variables

$`\stackrel{~}{H}^2=\mathrm{\Omega }_mx^3+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}x^2\stackrel{~}{H}^2\stackrel{~}{\varphi }^2+\stackrel{~}{V}.`$ (13)
This means that although initially only the scalar field potential energy is varied, eventually all quantities (except $`H_0`$) may vary between models. As we shall show later (section III), it turns out that differences in $`\mathrm{\Omega }_m`$ are negligible. This result is not surprising: as was shown in m2  (see in particular Fig. 2), this type of degeneracy characterizes models with fixed values of $`\mathrm{\Omega }_m`$. Families of models which are degenerate with respect to SN measurements but have different values of $`\mathrm{\Omega }_m`$ do not exhibit the enhanced resolution of $`w_Q(z^{})`$. This means that on top of the degeneracy that we will be exploring here, another dimension of degeneracy will open up once the uncertainties in $`\mathrm{\Omega }_m`$ are taken into account. The method described here therefore exposes only part of the degeneracy among potentials.

## III Degeneracies among simple potentials

We have analyzed various forms of potentials with two parameters. For all such potentials there are three independent variations, two parameters and the initial condition for $`\varphi `$. Enforcing the two constraints eqs. (10),(11) results in a solution which is a curve in a three-dimensional space. Obviously the degeneracy is larger when more parameters are allowed.

One class of potentials we have looked at is $`V(\varphi )=\frac{1}{2}m^2\varphi ^2+v_0`$. This is one of the standard simple forms of potentials, $`m`$ is the scalar field mass, $`v_0`$ is the value of the potential at the minimum (the CC). As explained previously we already have an order of magnitude estimates for $`v_0`$ and $`m`$, but we would like to know whether they can be determined in a more quantitative and conclusive way by the data. In particular we would like to know whether it is possible to distinguish models with a vanishing CC ($`v_0=0`$) from models with a non-vanishing CC ($`v_00`$). 222It is worth noting here that although $`v_00`$ is interpreted as a contribution to the vacuum energy which has $`w_\mathrm{\Lambda }=1`$, offsetting $`v_0`$ from zero and allowing $`V`$ to have negative regions can yield $`|w_Q|>1`$ while the field is still dynamical. For example, if $`V=KE/3`$ ($`KE`$ is the kinetic energy of the field), then $`w_Q=(KEV)/(KE+V)=2`$. For this class of quadratic potentials the variation is given by:

$`V+\delta V`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}(m+\delta m)^2(\varphi +\delta \varphi )^2+(v_0+\delta v_0)`$ (14)
$`=`$ $`\left[{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}m^2\varphi ^2+v_0\right]+\left[m^2\varphi \delta \varphi +m\varphi ^2\delta m+\delta v_0\right]`$
$`+`$ $`\left[{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}(m\delta \varphi +\varphi \delta m)^2+\delta \varphi \delta m(m+\delta m)(\varphi +\delta \varphi ){\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\delta m^2\delta \varphi ^2\right].`$
The first bracket is $`V`$ itself. The second bracket is $`\delta V^{(1)}`$ which should vanish, and the last bracket is $`\delta V^{(exact)}\delta V^{(1)}`$ which should vanish as well. The solution is a curve in the $`(\delta v_0,\delta m,\delta \varphi )`$ space. On this curve changes in the curvature and the height of the minimum of the potential are compensated by a change in the value of $`\varphi `$ such that the potential energy of the field is locally unchanged.

Figure 1 shows a variety of quadratic potentials on the left, their resulting $`w_Q`$ in the middle, and the relative difference in $`d_L`$ on the right. The parameters of the potentials are listed in table I. Notice that although the fiducial model has a vanishing CC, $`v_0=0`$, it is degenerate with models that have $`v_0`$ of order unity in units of the critical density ($`m_p^2H_0^2`$). The uncertainty in $`m`$ is of order unity in units of the present value of the Hubble parameter $`H_0`$.
All the models have values of $`\mathrm{\Omega }_m`$ which are within $`\pm 0.01`$ from the value of the fiducial. This means that we are indeed exploring here the degeneracy due to the integral relation between $`d_L`$ and $`w_Q`$, and not the degeneracy due to the uncertainty in $`\mathrm{\Omega }_m`$. As explained previously, this is a direct consequence of our method.

Following the same procedure we have analyzed other popular classes of potentials with two parameters. Figure 2 shows similar results for an exponential potential, $`V=Ae^{B\varphi }`$. For this specific potential only some of the solutions of eqs. (10) and (11) can be found analytically, hence the degeneracy shown is a smaller than the full degeneracy, as can be seen by the reduced range of allowed values of $`A`$ in table II. Figure 3 shows the results for an inverted quadratic potential, $`V=\frac{1}{2}m^2\varphi ^2+v_0`$.

As can be seen from the figures, the deviation in $`d_L`$ tends to peak at low redshift, about $`z=0.4`$. This results from the following reason: consider two models whose EOS cross at $`z=z^{}`$. For redshifts $`z<z^{}`$, the different $`w_Q`$ of the models imply different rates of expansion. The model whose $`w_Q`$ is more negative will expand faster, making the $`d_L`$’s of the two models diverge. In the range $`z>z^{}`$ the trends reverse, making their $`d_L`$’s converge. If this were the only source of degeneracy among models, it would have been useful to focus measurements in this range of redshifts, $`z0.4`$. Unfortunately a second degeneracy (due to the uncertainty in $`\mathrm{\Omega }_m`$) degrades the extra sensitivity in this region of redshifts.

So far we have analyzed the uncertainty in determination of parameters under the assumption that the form of the potential is known. Without a theoretical prior on the form of the “true” potential it is important to find whether different classes of potentials can be distinguished by the data alone. We will present here only a representative example and not attempt a systematic analysis to expose the full degeneracy.

In Figure 4 we show an example of four different degenerate potentials. All models have $`\mathrm{\Omega }_m=0.30`$. The potentials we have used in this example are $`V=\frac{1}{2}m^2\varphi ^2+v_0`$ (solid), $`V=Ae^{B\varphi }`$ (dotted), $`V=\frac{1}{2}m^2\varphi ^2+v_0`$ (dashed), and $`V=a+b\varphi `$ (dash-dotted). The right panel shows that the relative differences in their $`d_L`$’s are less than one percent up to $`z=2`$. The left panel shows the potentials. Although the functional forms of the potentials are very different and they do not have the same asymptotic behavior, they are nevertheless indistinguishable. This can be understood by observing that the patch of potential that was probed by the field during the relevant redshift range, (marked in the figure by the shaded area) is rather small. In this patch, differences among the various potentials are marginal.

The fact that a small patch of the potential is actually being probed justifies the use of a simple potential with a small number of parameters. A fast rolling field would have served as a better probe of the potential since it would have covered a larger patch in a given redshift range, but this would have meant a more positive $`w_Q`$ which goes against the evidence of accelerated expansion. Another possible way to enlarge the size of the probed potential patch would have been to measure $`d_L`$ over a larger redshift range. The difficulty here is that at deeper redshifts the contribution of dark energy to the total energy of the Universe is smaller, and its effects become harder to detect.

Our results may seem to disagree with those of weller , where it was shown that different forms of potentials could be distinguished using SNAP-like data alone, but we believe that they are in fact in full agreement. Our interpretation of the results of weller  is that they depend on the choice of specific parameters and initial conditions for each of the potentials that makes them distinguishable. This does not mean that for a given set of data, it will be possible to determine that a specific class of potentials is preferred over another. It is quite easy to construct counter examples by choosing the potentials to look similar in the relevant redshift patch. A representative example is shown in Fig. 5. The potentials that are used here are the pseudo-Nambu-Goldstone boson potential, $`V=M^4(\mathrm{cos}(\varphi /f)+1)`$ (with $`M^4/(m_p^2H_0^2)=0.82`$ and $`f/m_p=0.6`$), and the pure exponential, $`V=Ae^{B\varphi }`$ (with $`A/(m_p^2H_0^2)=4.43`$ and $`m_pB=1.78`$).

## IV Considering CMB

An additional measurement that can possibly probe the dark energy EOS and the scalar field potential is that of the cosmic microwave background (CMB) anisotropy. This measurement is expected to be improved with the upcoming MAP and PLANCK missions.

Using the CMB measurements to probe scalar field models requires additional theoretical assumptions about the evolution in the range from $`z2`$ to $`z1000`$. For example, that the potentials are “tracker” potentials Zlatev , or that the scalar field has negligible influence above some redshift (say, $`z=2`$).

It is well-known that the EOS cannot be determined using CMB anisotropy data alone due to degeneracies. A thorough analysis was done in huey , who concluded that this degeneracy persists after combining CMB and SN measurements. In m2  it was shown that the inclusion of CMB constraints in the analysis of the dark energy EOS does improve the resolution somewhat, but not significantly.

In a simple minded estimate here, we would like to show that under reasonable assumptions, CMB measurements will not help to significantly constrain the potential either. Rather than performing an extensive numerical search, as in m2 ; copeland ; fhlt , we use a different strategy: we treat CMB measurements as effectively providing one additional point on the Hubble diagram at the last scattering redshift $`z_{ls}1000`$. The method cannot provide numerically accurate results, but it does highlight the theoretical degeneracy that limits the ability of CMB measurements to constrain the parameters and functional form of the potential.

Treating the CMB measurements as effectively one additional point on the Hubble diagram at redshift $`z1000`$ can be implemented in a simple way because the angular distance and the luminosity distance are related to each other $`d_L=(1+z)^2d_A.`$ The observed angular size of any feature in the CMB, $`\theta `$, is related to its physical size $`d`$ by the angular distance $`d_A`$ to last scattering surface, $`\theta d_A=d`$. The CMB spectrum yields a series of acoustic peaks, located at $`l_n=\frac{n\pi }{S}d_A`$, $`n`$ being an integer, and $`S`$ is the sound horizon at last scattering surface. We are going to ignore uncertainties in the sound horizon $`S`$, which depends on the composition of the universe at last scattering surface.

To estimate the measurement accuracy of the CMB point on the Hubble diagram we may treat the position of the first peak $`l_1`$, as a direct measurement of the angular distance, therefore the relative errors in $`l_1`$ and in the angular distance are equal $`\frac{\mathrm{\Delta }l_1}{l_1}=\frac{\mathrm{\Delta }d_A}{d_A}`$. The position of the first peak is already measured rather well, to about $`3\%`$ at the $`1\sigma `$ level (see, for example, hu ). This is expected to be somewhat improved by MAP and PLANCK, so we may expect eventually a $`3\sigma `$ error in the few percent range.

Another way of estimating the accuracy of the CMB point is to use the results of m2 , where it was shown that for models which have a linear $`w_Q`$ for $`z<2`$ and $`w_Q=const.`$ from $`z=2`$ to last scattering surface, a derivative as large as $`w_1=\pm \frac{1}{6}`$ could not be distinguished at the $`3\sigma `$ level, assuming full sky coverage and cosmic variance limited measurement. This means that the most accurate CMB measurements do not distinguish models which lead to a difference of (+1.6%, -3.2%) in their $`d_L`$’s. Thus a $`3\sigma `$ measurement error estimate of a few percent in $`d_L`$ seems reasonable.

According to the preceding discussion we may define models to be indistinguishable by the CMB if their $`d_L`$ difference is less than a few percent at $`z_{ls}`$. We may check now whether this imposes additional constraints on our models. We find that it does, but not to a significant degree.

Since our toy models are not strictly chosen as tracker models, evolving the equations of motion backwards from $`z0.3`$ up to $`z1000`$ gives nonsensical results, the dark energy typically becomes dominant, with $`w_Q`$ approaching 1. In order to to avoid such undesirable and observationally excluded behavior, the potential needs to be changed in the regions that are probed by the field in the redshift range $`z1`$ such that the kinetic energy remains acceptably small, so that $`w_Q`$ remains negative and $`\mathrm{\Omega }_Q`$ becomes sub-dominant.

Instead of building the potential piece-wise, we have chosen another approach in the spirit of m2 : we let the equations of motion evolve until $`z=2`$ (the redshift range relevant to SN measurement), and for $`z>2`$ we put by hand $`w_Q=0`$ for all models. We then calculate numerically the relative differences in $`d_L`$ at $`z=1000`$. Our cutoff procedure changes the $`z`$-dependence of $`w_Q`$ at a value of $`z`$ where the dark energy density is negligible, which makes the details of the $`z`$-dependent cutoff unimportant. We expect other cutoff procedures to give similar results.

We find that the relative differences in $`d_L`$ for our models are within a few percent, in agreement with the semi-analytic argument that we present shortly. For the potentials shown in Fig. 4, we find $`\frac{\mathrm{\Delta }d_L}{d_L}=`$ $`0.9`$% for the exponential potential, $`3.4`$% for the inverted quadratic potential, and $`1.6`$% for the linear potential. As explained previously this is just at the limit of CMB resolution. For the quadratic potential examples in Fig. 1 we find the following $`d_L`$ differences from the fiducial, dashed: $`2.5`$%, dot-dashed: $`6.2`$%, dotted: $`8.0`$%, for the exponential potentials of Fig. 2 we find: dashed: $`4.5`$%, dotted: $`6.8`$%, and for the inverted quadratic potential of Fig. 3 we find dashed: $`7.8`$%, dotted: $`8.1`$%, and dot-dashed: $`5.1`$%.

For most of the models we see that CMB is expected to further constrain the parameters if the form of the potential is known. The larger $`d_L`$ differences are for models whose differences at $`z2`$ are larger, in agreement with the following semi-analytic argument. Given the approximate nature of our measurement accuracy estimate, the large number of additional sources of degeneracy that we have neglected, and the additional theoretical assumptions that go into the analysis with the CMB point added it is not possible, and we believe that it is not necessary to determine in a more quantitative way the amount by which the degeneracy is reduced.

We may estimate in a rough semi-analytic way the relative errors in $`d_L`$ at $`z1000`$ as follows. Luminosity distance at $`1+z_{ls}=x_{ls}1000`$ for models with $`w_Q(x>3)=0`$ is given by m2 ,

$`d_L(x_{ls})`$ $`=`$ $`x_{ls}\sqrt{1+g}{\displaystyle _1^{x_{ls}}}{\displaystyle \frac{dx}{x^{3/2}}}\left(g+exp(3{\displaystyle _1^x}w_Q{\displaystyle \frac{dy}{y}})\right)^{1/2}`$ (15)
$`=`$ $`x_{ls}\sqrt{1+g}{\displaystyle _1^3}{\displaystyle \frac{dx}{x^{3/2}}}\left(g+exp(3{\displaystyle _1^x}w_Q{\displaystyle \frac{dy}{y}})\right)^{1/2}`$
$`+`$ $`x_{ls}\sqrt{1+g}{\displaystyle _3^{x_{ls}}}{\displaystyle \frac{dx}{x^{3/2}}}\left(g+exp(3{\displaystyle _1^x}w_Q{\displaystyle \frac{dy}{y}})\right)^{1/2}`$
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{x_{ls}}{3}}d_L(3)+x_{ls}\sqrt{1+g}{\displaystyle _3^{x_{ls}}}{\displaystyle \frac{dx}{x^{3/2}}}\left(g+exp(3{\displaystyle _1^3}w_Q{\displaystyle \frac{dy}{y}})\right)^{1/2}`$
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{x_{ls}}{3}}d_L(3)+2x_{ls}\left({\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{3}}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{x_{ls}}}}\right)\left({\displaystyle \frac{1+g}{g+exp(3_1^3w_Q\frac{dy}{y})}}\right)^{1/2},`$
where $`g`$ is the current ratio of matter to dark energy densities, and we have set $`H_0`$ to unity. The second term can be expressed in terms of the luminosity distance at $`x=3`$ and its derivative:

$$\left(\frac{1+g}{g+exp(3_1^3w_Q\frac{dy}{y})}\right)^{1/2}=3^{3/2}\frac{d}{dx}\left(\frac{d_L}{x}\right)_{x=3},$$
(16)
so,

$$d_L(x_{ls})\frac{x_{ls}}{3}d_L(3)+2x_{ls}d_L^{}(3).$$
(17)
Now we would like to examine the difference in $`d_L(x_{ls})`$ for two models. For a simple and rough error estimate, we may use $`d_L^{}(3)=c_1\frac{d_L(3)}{3}`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }d_L^{}(3)=c_2\frac{\mathrm{\Delta }d_L(3)}{3}`$ with $`c_1`$, $`c_2`$ numerical coefficients of order unity. So finally we obtain

$$\left(\frac{\mathrm{\Delta }d_L}{d_L}\right)_{x_{ls}}\frac{2c_21}{2c_11}\left(\frac{\mathrm{\Delta }d_L}{d_L}\right)_{x=3}.$$
(18)
Note that the relative $`d_L`$ error at $`x_{ls}`$ is independent of $`x_{ls}`$. Since we consider models whose maximal relative error at $`z=2`$ is one percent, they will have a relative error in $`d_L`$ of about a few percent at $`z_{ls}`$, depending on the values of $`c_1`$ and $`c_2`$. This estimate agrees with the numerical examples that we have listed above.

We conclude that once physically reasonable constraints are imposed on the potential, CMB measurements do not significantly constrain the parameter space of the potentials, although they are expected to reduce it somewhat. Our simple minded analysis strengthens the case first made in huey  where it was shown that only some average EOS can be measured, and agrees with linder ; fhlt .

## V Conclusions

We have found that it is not possible to obtain precise quantitative estimates for parameters of scalar field models of dark energy from data alone beyond the obvious order of magnitude estimates. This is due to theoretical degeneracies, which would persist even with expected future data from the most accurate SN and CMB measurements.

Theoretical prior knowledge or assumptions on the form of the potential and the field’s initial conditions (preferably leaving a total of just two free parameters) may allow a more quantitative determination. For example, assuming that the field is at rest at the bottom of the potential is equivalent to having a pure cosmological constant. In this case the magnitude of the cosmological constant can be determined with accurate data to within a few percent.

## VI Acknowledgements

I.M. gratefully acknowledges support from the Clore foundation.


format: text

text:
# Lattice simulations for the running coupling constant of QCD

## 1 QCD coupling and $`\beta `$-function

The scale dependence of the QCD coupling $`\alpha _s=g_s^2/(4\pi )`$ is controlled by the $`\beta `$-function:

$$\mu \frac{\alpha _s}{\mu }=\beta (\alpha _s)=\left(\frac{\beta _0}{2\pi }\alpha _s^2+\frac{\beta _1}{4\pi ^2}\alpha _s^3+\frac{\beta _2}{64\pi ^3}\alpha _s^4+\mathrm{}\right)\text{,}$$
(1)
where $`\beta _0=112N_f/3`$, $`\beta _1=5119N_f/3`$ and $`N_f`$ is the number of flavors of quarks with mass less than the energy scale $`\mu `$. The coefficients $`\beta _n`$ for $`n2`$ are renormalization-scheme-dependent.

By solving the differential equation for $`\alpha _s`$, a constant of integration is introduced. This constant is the one fundamental constant of QCD. Usually one chooses for this constant the value of $`\alpha _s`$ at a fixed reference scale $`\mu _0`$. Equivalently one can consider the dimensional parameter $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$, defined for example as

$`\mathrm{\Lambda }(N_f)`$ $`=`$ $`\mu \mathrm{exp}\left[{\displaystyle \frac{2\pi }{\beta _0\alpha _s(\mu )}}\right]\left[{\displaystyle \frac{\beta _0\alpha _s(\mu )}{2\pi }}\right]^{\beta _1/\beta _0^2}`$ (2)
$`\times \mathrm{exp}\left\{{\displaystyle _0^{\alpha _s(\mu )}}𝑑u\left[{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\beta (u)}}+{\displaystyle \frac{2\pi }{\beta _0u^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{\beta _1}{\beta _0^2u}}\right]\right\}\text{.}`$
Note that, by using this relation at the leading order, one gets that $`\mathrm{\Lambda }(N_f)`$ is known with an accuracy of about $`\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}5}\%`$ if $`\alpha _s(\mu )`$ is given with an accuracy of about $`\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}1}\%`$.

When two different renormalization schemes are considered one can write

$$\alpha _s^{(1)}(\mu )=\alpha _s^{(2)}(\mu )\left\{1+a\frac{\alpha _s^{(2)}(\mu )}{4\pi }+b\left[\frac{\alpha _s^{(2)}(\mu )}{4\pi }\right]^2+\mathrm{}\right\}$$
(3)
and check that

$`\beta _2^{(1)}`$ $`=`$ $`\beta _2^{(2)}\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}4}a\beta _1+\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}(ba^2)\beta _0`$ (4)
$`\mathrm{\Lambda }^{(1)}(N_f)`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{\Lambda }^{(2)}(N_f)\mathrm{exp}\left({\displaystyle \frac{a}{2\beta _0}}\right)\text{.}`$ (5)
Using the $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ parameter we can also obtain a parametrization of the $`\mu `$ dependence of the QCD coupling111Note that this parametrization is not unique but depends on the choice of the constant of integration (see for example problem 13.11 in Ref. ).

$$\alpha _s(\mu )=\frac{2\pi }{\beta _0\mathrm{log}(\mu /\mathrm{\Lambda })}\left[1\frac{\beta _1}{\beta _0^2}\frac{\mathrm{log}(\mathrm{log}(\mu /\mathrm{\Lambda }))}{\mathrm{log}(\mu /\mathrm{\Lambda })}+\mathrm{}\right]\text{.}$$
(6)
Clearly the coupling decreases as the scale $`\mu `$ increases, corresponding to the property of asymptotic freedom. However, due to the logarithmic dependence one needs to consider a large range of scales $`\mu `$ in order to see a variation of $`\alpha _s(\mu )`$ by a factor two or three (see Fig. 9.2 in Ref. ).

### 1.1 Experimental results for $`\alpha _s(\mu )`$

The value for a quantity $`A`$ from an experiment can be used to extract a value of $`\alpha _s(\mu )`$ by considering the following perturbative expansion (in some renormalization scheme)

$$A=c_0+c_1\alpha _s(\mu )+c_2\alpha _s^2(\mu )+\mathrm{}\text{.}$$
(7)
If the scale involved is low one should also try to take into account non-pertubative contributions to $`A`$. Clearly the physical result $`A`$ does not depend on the chosen renormalization scheme. However, the truncated perturbative series does exhibit renormalization-scheme dependence. In particular, the finite coefficients $`c_i(i2)`$ depend on the renormalization scale $`\mu `$ and, implicitly, on the chosen renormalization scheme. Therefore, for a given scheme, one should find the best choice222See Ref.  for various methods proposed for choosing the scale $`\mu `$. for the scale $`\mu `$ in order to reduce the scale ambiguity in the expansion (7).

In order to compare the values of $`\alpha _s(\mu )`$ from various experiments, these values must be evolved — using the renormalization group — to a common scale (usually the mass of the $`Z^0`$ boson) and related to a common scheme (usually the $`\overline{MS}`$ scheme). The present world-wide average in the $`\overline{MS}`$ scheme for $`\alpha _s(M_Z)^{(N_f=5)}`$ is $`0.1172\pm 0.002`$.

## 2 Numerical evaluation of $`\alpha _s(\mu =q)`$

One can perform the experiment also on a computer, using Lattice QCD. For example, one can evaluate numerically the plaquette $`W_{1,1}=<TrU_{\mu \nu }/3>`$ — which corresponds to the elementary gluonic action on the lattice — and compare the result with a perturbative expansion. Also in this case one should be careful with the choice of the scheme used for the perturbative expansion and with the choice of the scale $`\mu `$. For example, it is well known that the expansion of the plaquette $`W_{1,1}`$ in terms of the lattice bare coupling $`\alpha _0=g_0^2/4\pi `$ yields a very poor result. In fact, for $`g_0^2=1`$ one-loop perturbation theory with $`N_f=0`$ predicts $`\mathrm{log}W_{1,1}0.4228`$ while the corresponding Monte Carlo result is about $`\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}0.5214}`$.

A better expansion is obtained if one considers an effective coupling defined in terms of a physical quantity. For example, if $`V(q)`$ is the inter-quark potential one can define

$$V(q)=\frac{16\pi \alpha _V(q^2)}{3q^2}$$
(8)
and work in the $`\alpha _V`$ scheme. In this scheme one gets, at the one-loop level and with $`N_f=0`$,

$$\mathrm{log}W_{1,1}=c_1\alpha _V(q^2)\left[1+\stackrel{~}{c}_2\alpha _V^2(q^2)+\mathrm{}\right]\text{,}$$
(9)
where $`\stackrel{~}{c}_2=\frac{11}{4\pi }\mathrm{log}\left(\frac{\pi ^2}{a^2q^2}\right)+\stackrel{~}{d}`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{d}1.329`$. In order to fix the value of the scale $`q`$ the idea introduced in Ref.  is to impose the relation

$$\alpha _V(\overline{q}^2)c_1=\alpha _V(\overline{q}^2)d^4qf(q)=d^4q\alpha _V(q^2)f(q)\text{,}$$
(10)
namely $`\overline{q}`$ is the average momentum entering in the one-loop calculation. By expanding both $`\alpha _V(\overline{q}^2)`$ and $`\alpha _V(q^2)`$ in terms of $`\alpha _V(\mu ^2)`$ one gets

$$\mathrm{log}(\overline{q}^2)d^4qf(q)=d^4q\mathrm{log}(q^2)f(q)\text{.}$$
(11)
In the case of the plaquette this prescription gives $`\overline{q}3.4018/a`$ where $`a`$ is the lattice spacing. Clearly, this procedure can be repeated for different Wilson loops $`W_{r,t}`$, i.e. from the numerical values for $`W_{r,t}`$ one can obtain $`\alpha _V(\overline{q}_{r,t}^2)`$ using a perturbative expansion like eq. (9). As can be seen from Fig. 8 in Ref. , the coupling $`\alpha _V(q^2)`$ obtained from such calculations runs with $`q`$ in agreement with a two-loop formula (6).

In order to compare these results with experimental data one needs to fix the lattice spacing $`a`$, i.e. the scale $`\overline{q}`$ should be given in physical units. This can be done by comparing lattice data with an experimental input, as has been done using the $`\mathrm{{\rm Y}}`$ meson spectrum, known experimentally with very good accuracy and for which accurate simulations can be done. Using results for $`N_f=0`$ and $`N_f=2`$ dynamical fermions, which allows extrapolation to physical case $`N_f=3`$, the authors of Ref.  obtained a final result — in the $`\overline{MS}`$ scheme and evolved perturbatively to the $`Z^0`$ mass scale — of $`0.1174\pm 0.0024`$. Similar results have been obtained by other groups, using different lattice setups, and have been included by the Particle Data Group in the evaluation of the world-wide average of $`\alpha _s(M_Z)^{(N_f=5)}`$.

### 2.1 Ingredients for a numerical evaluation of the QCD running coupling constant

From the previous analysis it is clear that in order to evaluate the QCD running coupling constant using lattice numerical simulations one needs:333See Ref.  for a previous review of the numerical determination of $`\alpha _s`$.

* a good definition for $`\alpha _s`$ allowing high accuracy, control over finite-size effects and discretization effects,
* an accurate determination of the energy scale (i.e. the lattice spacing $`a`$),
* a perturbative relation with $`\alpha _{\overline{MS}}`$,
* the possibility of extending the procedure to dynamical fermions (unquenched simulations).

## 3 Running coupling in a finite box

The Alpha collaboration studies the QCD running coupling using finite boxes (with physical size $`L=Na`$), a definition for $`\alpha _s`$ that explicitly depends on the scale $`L`$, and a non-perturbative finite-size scaling technique. To this end one could consider, for example, the force between static quarks separated by a distance $`r=L/2`$, given by

$$\alpha _{q\overline{q}}(L)=\frac{3}{4}r^2F_{q\overline{q}}(r,L)|_{r=L/2}\text{,}$$
(12)
or a correlation function for a separation $`r=L/2`$. Most of the simulations by the Alpha collaboration have been carried out using as definition for $`\alpha _s`$ the response of the system to a change of the boundary conditions in the Schrödinger functional approach (for details see Ref. ). In all cases the physical size $`L`$ of the lattice is the only physical scale on which these couplings depend, i.e. the box size may be regarded as a reference scale, similar to the renormalization scale $`\mu `$. Thus, one has a coupling running with $`\mu =1/L`$.

The key point in considering these couplings is the use of a non-perturbative renormalization group technique. More specifically, one defines the step-scaling function $`\sigma (u)`$ through the relation $`\alpha _s(2L)=\sigma (\alpha _s(L))`$. Clearly this function provides the value of the coupling in a box of size $`\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}L`$ given a value for the same coupling in a box of size $`L`$. Thus, $`\sigma (u)`$ can be regarded as an “integrated” $`\beta `$-function. The step-scaling function can be evaluated non-perturbatively using numerical simulations by considering several values of $`L`$, as shown in Fig. 4 in Ref. . Notice that for each data point in the plot one should carefully check for possible systematic effects, especially discretization errors. In fact, each point is the result of an extrapolation444See Ref.  for possible problems with this extrapolation. to zero lattice spacing of data obtained from several simulations, done with the same physical size $`L`$ but different lattice spacing $`a`$ and number of sites per direction $`N`$.

Once the step-scaling function is known, i.e. after fitting the numerical data, one can evaluate the running coupling in a very large box $`L_0=L_{max}`$ and then find the value of the coupling for boxes of sizes $`L_i=L_0/2^i`$, using a recursive procedure and a numerical inversion of the step-scaling function. \[In order to keep errors under control one should avoid using the fit for the step-scaling function outside the range of the numerical data, i.e. one should avoid extrapolating the step-scaling function $`\sigma (u)`$ to very small values of $`u`$.\] In this way one obtains the values $`\alpha _s(\mu _i)`$ for the running coupling at the scales $`\mu _i=1/L_i=2^i/L_{max}`$.

Since all the scales $`\mu _i`$ are given in term of $`L_{max}`$, the last step consists in setting the scale for the largest lattice, i.e. finding the value of $`L_{max}`$ in physical units by comparing lattice data with an experimental input. Thus, the use of a non-perturbative finite-size scaling technique avoids the requirement of a non-perturbative evaluation of the scale $`L_i`$ for very small values of $`L_i`$: this is in general complicated by finite-size effects and by the fact that small values of $`L_i`$ correspond to large value of $`\beta `$ and that simulations at large $`\beta `$ and small physical volumes are essentially “perturbative”.

The final value obtained by the Alpha collaboration in pure QCD is $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{\overline{MS}}^{(N_f=0)}=251\pm 21`$ MeV. Preliminary data with dynamical fermions ($`N_f=2`$) have been presented last year.

## 4 Numerical determination of $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$

Several groups study the running of the QCD coupling (in some scheme) over a range of energies and then try to fit the data using a two- or three-loop expression for $`\alpha (q)`$ as in eq. (6), considering $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ as a fitting parameter. Alternatively, one can evaluate $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ as a function of $`\alpha (q)`$ and look for a plateau at high scale \[note that in eq. (2) the left-hand side is constant, for a given value of $`N_f`$, even though the right-hand side depends explicitly on the scale $`\mu `$\].

### 4.1 Inter-quark potential

One can evaluate the QCD coupling using the static potential $`V(r)`$, which can be evaluated for several values of $`r`$ with good accuracy using Wilson loop data and the relation

$$W(r,t)=C(r)e^{[tV(r)]}+\mathrm{}\text{.}$$
(13)
This formula should in general be considered in the limit of large $`t`$, but using555For a review of this method see for example Ref. . smearing and noise-reduction techniques one can increase the overlap of the evaluated quantity with the ground state, i.e. increase the value of $`C(r)`$, and obtain a good signal already for small values of $`t`$. Then, from $`V(r)`$ one can obtain the force $`F(r)`$ \[and the running coupling $`\alpha _{q\overline{q}}(1/r)`$, see eq. (12)\] using a finite-difference approximation for the derivative $`dV(r)/dr`$. In the quenched case one obtains $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{\overline{MS}}^{(N_f=0)}=246\pm 7\pm 3`$ MeV, in excellent agreement with the result from the Alpha collaboration. Unquenched simulations (also interesting to study string breaking) are under way.

### 4.2 Three-gluon vertex

In this case one evaluates the three-gluon vertex in the $`\stackrel{~}{MOM}`$ scheme (in Landau gauge). For this quantity perturbative results are known to three loops (and the corresponding beta function to four loops). In order to obtain good data a careful analysis of breaking of rotational symmetry is required. From quenched simulations one obtains the value $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{\overline{MS}}^{(N_f=0)}=295\pm 5\pm 15`$ MeV, somewhat larger than the previous results. Preliminary unquenched data have been presented last year and the authors quote $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{\overline{MS}}^{(N_f=2)}=264\pm 27`$ MeV. A similar study has started recently using the quark-gluon vertex yielding $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{\overline{MS}}^{(N_f=0)}=300_{180}^{+150}\pm 55\pm 30`$ MeV, in agreement with the result obtained using the three-gluon vertex.

### 4.3 Gluon propagator

In this case one evaluates the gluon propagator $`D(q)`$ (in Landau gauge) and defines $`Z_3(q)=q^2D(q)`$. Then, the gluon data can be fitted by considering the two coupled differential equations

$`{\displaystyle \frac{d\mathrm{log}Z_3(q)}{d\mathrm{log}q^2}}`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{\Gamma }(\alpha )=\left[{\displaystyle \frac{\gamma _0}{4\pi }}\alpha +{\displaystyle \frac{\gamma _1}{(4\pi )^2}}\alpha ^2+\mathrm{}\right]`$ (14)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{d\alpha }{d\mathrm{log}q}}`$ $`=`$ $`\beta (\alpha )=\left[{\displaystyle \frac{\beta _0}{2\pi }}\alpha +{\displaystyle \frac{\beta _1}{(2\pi )^2}}\alpha ^2+\mathrm{}\right]\text{,}`$ (15)
where $`\mathrm{\Gamma }(\alpha )`$ is the anomalous dimension of the gluon renormalization constant in the $`MOM`$ scheme. At the lowest order these equations imply the well-known result $`D(q^2)1/q^2\mathrm{log}^c(q^2/\mathrm{\Lambda }^2)`$ with $`c=\frac{\gamma _0}{2\beta _0}=13/22`$.

A solution for these two equations depends on the values $`Z_3(\mu )`$ and $`\alpha (\mu )`$ given at some scale $`\mu `$, and a direct fit of the data provides a value for these two constants. The value $`\alpha _s(\mu )`$ obtained from the fit can then be evolved, using the renormalization group, to the $`Z^0`$ scale and related to the $`\overline{MS}`$ scheme, using the perturbative relation between the two schemes. The authors quote $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{\overline{MS}}^{(N_f=0)}=319\pm 14_{20}^{+10}`$ MeV as final result in the quenched case, in agreement with the results quoted in Sec 4.2.

### 4.4 Search for power corrections

Recently there have been various attempts of finding power corrections to the perturbative running of $`\alpha _s`$, following theoretical predictions. In particular data from the inter-quark potential, the three-gluon vertex and the gluon propagator have been reanalyzed. In all cases the authors found that a nonzero contribution proportional to $`\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}1}/p^2`$ improves the fit of the data. In particular, the result obtained in this way for the $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ parameter using the three-gluon vertex, i.e. $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{\overline{MS}}^{(N_f=0)}=237\pm 3_{10}^{\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}0}}`$ MeV, is in much better agreement with the results quoted in Sections 3 and 4.1 than the original value (see Section 4.2).

## 5 Running couplings at the IFSC-USP

We now describe the simulations being performed since July 2001 at the Institute of Physics of the University of São Paulo, São Carlos (IFSC–USP). In connection with a grant from FAPESP (“Projeto Jovem Pesquisador”, together with Tereza Mendes), we have set up a dedicated PC cluster at the IFSC–USP. The system has 16 nodes with 866 MHz Pentium III CPU and 256 MB RAM memory (working at 133 MHz), a server with 866 MHz Pentium III CPU and 512 MB RAM memory (working at 133 MHz) and is operating with Debian Linux. The machines are connected with a 100 Mbps full-duplex network and in total there are 130 GB in /tmp directories and 24.8 GB for the /home directory.

We are carrying out simulations considering two definitions of the running coupling constant. In the Coulomb gauge666Work in collaboration with D. Zwanziger, New York University (NYU). Some of our simulations are done on a PC cluster at NYU. we consider

$$g_C^2(𝐩)\frac{11}{12}𝐩^2V(𝐩)\frac{11}{12}g_0^2𝐩^2D_{44}(𝐩)\text{,}$$
(16)
where $`V(𝐩)`$ is the color-Coulomb potential, $`D_{44}(𝐩)`$ is the time-time component (at equal time) of the gluon propagator and the momenta are three-dimensional.777Remarkably, this definition of the running coupling constant is renormalization-group invariant. Clearly, if $`V(𝐩)`$ is governed by a string tension at large distances, i.e. goes like $`\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}1}/𝐩^4`$ at small momenta, then we should find $`g_C^2(𝐩)1/𝐩^2`$ in the infrared limit. In Landau gauge888Work in collaboration with K. Langfeld and J. C. R. Bloch, Tübingen University. we consider

$$g_L^2(p)\frac{g_0^2}{4\pi }\left[p^2D(p)\right]\left[p^2G(p)\right]^2\text{,}$$
(17)
where $`D(p)`$ is the transverse gluon propagator and $`G(p)`$ is the ghost propagator. This expression enters directly in the quark Schwinger-Dyson equation and can be interpreted as an effective interaction strength between quarks.999This is also a renormalization-group-invariant quantity since (in Landau gauge) $`\stackrel{~}{Z_1}=\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}1}`$. In this case one obtains $`g_L^2(p)p^2`$ if, for example, $`D(p)\text{const}`$ and $`G(p)p^4`$ in the infrared limit. On the contrary, if the gluon propagator goes to $`\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}0}`$ in the infrared limit and the ghost propagator blows up not faster than $`p^4`$ then $`g_L^2(p)`$ has an infrared fixed point. The last behavior has also been obtained by solving (approximatively) a coupled set of Schwinger-Dyson equations.

In our project we are also interested in a numerical verification of Gribov’s confinement scenarios — written in terms of the infra-red bahavior for the propagators considered above — for these two gauges. Theoretical studies predict that in Landau gauge, there should be a strong suppression of the (unrenormalized) transverse gluon propagator $`D(p)`$ in the infrared limit and an enhancement of the ghost propagator $`G(p)`$ in the same limit. These results clearly indicate the absence of a massless gluon from the physical spectrum and provide an indication of a long-range effect in the theory that may result in color confinement. The confinement scenario is particularly simple in the minimal Coulomb gauge where the ghost propagator determines directly the Coulomb interaction. In fact, in this case, confinement of color, i.e. the enhancement at long range of the color-Coulomb potential $`V(R)`$, is due to the enhancement of ghost propagator $`G(𝐩)`$ at small momenta. At the same time, the disappearance of gluons from the physical spectrum is manifested by the suppression at $`𝐩=\stackrel{}{0}`$ of the propagator $`D_{ij}(𝐩,p_4)`$ of 3-dimensionally transverse would-be physical gluons.

Preliminary results in the pure $`SU(2)`$ case for the two running coupling constants and Gribov’s confinement scenarios have been presented in Refs. .

## Acknowledgments

The author thanks the organizers of Hadron Physics 2002 for the invitation, and Tereza Mendes for her help in writing this manuscript. This work has been supported by FAPESP, Brazil (Project No. 00/05047-5).


text:
# Multi-frequency GMRT Observations of the H ii regions S 201, S 206, and S 209

## 1 Introduction

A number of studies have indicated that the electron temperature $`T_\mathrm{e}`$of H ii region increases with increasing Galacto-centric distance (e.g. Deharveng et al. (2000) and references therein). This effect is attributed to a decrease in heavy elements abundances with Galacto-centric distance. A low metal abundance leads to less effective cooling and consequently higher electron temperature. These studies are based either on estimates of $`T_\mathrm{e}`$from radio recombination lines (RRLs) (which in turn depend on corrections for departures from local thermodynamic equilibrium (LTE) and for collisional broadening effects), or estimates based on line strengths of the forbidden line transitions of Oxygen \[O iii\]$`\lambda \lambda `$4363, 5007 (which are strongly dependent on temperature variations, if any, over the observed volume). Further, most of these studies are based on observations of H ii regions with Galacto-centric distances $`R_G15`$ kpc with very few measurements of $`T_\mathrm{e}`$beyond 15 kpc. Consequently most determinations of metalicities of the outer galaxy H ii regions are based on values of $`T_\mathrm{e}`$taken from an extrapolation of the observed gradient in temperature up to about 15 kpc (e.g., Deharveng et al. (2000)). Since the O/H ratio (a commonly used indicator of metal abundance) depends sensitively on $`T_\mathrm{e}`$, metalicities of the outer galaxy H ii regions are poorly constrained. In view of this, it is important to get independent estimates of the electron temperatures of H ii regions in the outer galaxy.

An independent measurement of $`T_\mathrm{e}`$can be obtained from radio continuum observations. The ionized material in H ii regions emits radio continuum through free-free emission. At sufficiently low radio frequencies where the nebula is optically thick ($`\tau >>1`$), the emergent radiation is a black body spectrum, and therefore, the observed brightness temperature is equal to the electron temperature $`T_\mathrm{e}`$. On the other hand, at sufficiently high radio frequencies, where the optical depth $`\tau `$ of thermal electrons is low ($`\tau <<1`$), the observed brightness is proportional to the emission measure of the nebula. Most of the available radio maps for H ii regions are at high radio frequencies (i.e. above 1.4 GHz, e.g., Fich 1993, Balser et al. (1995)). These maps show that H ii regions often have a bright core with several knots surrounded by an extended envelop of diffuse emission. These core–envelope structures of H ii regions imply that accurate measurement of $`T_\mathrm{e}`$from low radio frequency observations requires high angular resolution, since, often only bright compact cores will be optically thick at frequencies of a few hundred MHz. This study presents an analysis of the low-frequency GMRT observations of three Galactic diffuse H ii regions spanning Galacto-centric distances up to 18 kpc.

The GMRT is an ideal telescope for these observations since it operates at several low radio frequency bands, viz., 150, 232, 327, 610, and 1420 MHz and also it has a hybrid configuration which makes it sensitive to both diffuse emission (on scales up to $``$ 45′ at 232, 30′ at 327, and 17′ at 610 MHz) while also having the resolution ($``$ 15″ at 232, 10″ at 327, and 6″ at 610 MHz) to resolve the compact cores.

## 2 Observations

The observations were carried out during the period of August to December, 1999 at three frequency bands, viz., 232, 327, and 610 MHz. The GMRT has a ‘Y’ shaped hybrid configuration of antennas with six antennas along each of the three arms and twelve antennas randomly placed in a compact arrangement near the centre of ‘Y’ (for details, see Swarup et al. (1991)). The compact array at the centre is about a kilometer across and is generally referred as the “central square”. Baselines in the central square (shortest baseline $`100`$ m) provide sensitivity to diffuse large scale emission, while baselines involving arm antennas (longest baseline $`25`$ km) provide high angular resolution. The GMRT was in its commissioning phase during our observations, and due to various debugging and maintenance activities not all 30 antennas were available for observations. The observations were carried out with typically 20 to 25 antennas in different observing sessions.

The data were recorded in the default correlator mode which produces visibilities in 128 channels over a user selectable bandwidth in multiples of 2 starting from 62.5 kHz and up to 16 MHz. The observational parameters are summarized in table 1. The observations near 610 and 327 MHz were made using the full 16 MHz bandwidth while observations near 232 MHz were made with a bandwidth of 2 MHz centered at a frequency around which least local interference has been detected in the past observations. The images at all frequencies are however made using data from only one channel which corresponds to a bandwidth of 125 kHz at 327 and 610 MHz, and 15.6 kHz at 232 MHz. This restriction was partly because of a crunch in disk storage at the time when these data were taken, and partly because dynamic range limitations at the GMRT at the time we took the data meant that the increase in bandwidth did not result in a proportionate increase in sensitivity. At each frequency band, we observed the source for about 8–10 hours, primarily in order to have a good $`(u,v)`$ coverage.

For all the observations, the source 3C 48 was used as the primary flux calibrator. The flux density of 3C 48 at each frequency was estimated using the Baars et al. (1977) flux densities of standard VLA calibrators. The phase and amplitude gains of antennas were derived from observations of a secondary calibrator at intervals of 45 minutes. For observations on S 206 and S 209, 3C 119 was used as a secondary calibrator while 0107+562 was used as a secondary calibrator for observations on S 201. Both 3C 119 and 0107+562 are standard VLA calibrators. The fluxes of secondary calibrators were determined via boot-strapping the fluxes of the primary calibrator 3C 48.

The data were carefully checked for interference or other problems. At 232 and 327 MHz, a few short baselines were found to be corrupted, possibly by interference, and were removed. The data at 610 MHz were found to be free from any interference. Data reduction was done in classic AIPS. The calibrated data were Fourier transformed using appropriate $`(u,v)`$ ranges, tapers and weights to make different images, some of which are sensitive to large scale structures, and others which have the maximum possible angular resolution. These images were deconvolved using the ‘CLEAN’ algorithm as implemented in AIPS task ‘IMAGR’. The final gains of the antennas were fixed using several iterations of self-calibration.

The variations in system temperatures of GMRT antennas are currently not routinely monitored during observations. The system temperature at 610 MHz was measured both toward the absolute flux calibrator 3C 48 and the target source by firing the noise calibration diodes. For 327 and 232 MHz images, the system temperature toward 3C 48 and target source were obtained using interpolated values of sky temperature from 408 MHz all–sky map of Haslam et al. (1982). A correction factor equal to the ratio of the system temperature toward the target source and 3C 48 was applied in the deconvolved image. The deconvolved images were finally corrected for the primary beam attenuation, assuming a Gaussian shape for the primary beam. The half power points (HPBW) of the primary beam of GMRT antenna are estimated as 1.85, 1.35, and 0.72 degree for 232, 327 and 610 MHz respectively.

## 3 Results

Images of S 201 are shown in Fig. 1\[A\], \[B\], & \[C\]. S 201, ($`l=138.48,b=1.64`$ ; also known as IC 1848), at a Galacto-centric distance of $`10.5\pm 1`$ kpc, is believed to be excited due to a single star of spectral type O9.5 (Mampaso et al. (1989)). High resolution ($``$5″) 15 GHz radio continuum image reveals a bright arc like core with multiple peaks of emission (Felli et al. (1987)). The 616 MHz GMRT low resolution image (Fig. 1 \[C\]) traces diffuse emission extending up to $``$5′ which is consistent with the 1.4 GHz VLA image of Fich (1993). The high resolution 231 MHz GMRT image (Fig. 1\[B\]) shows the core to be a complex structure consisting of several unresolved compact sources. The diffuse nebulosity extending toward the west of the core in the 231 MHz image (Fig. 1\[B\]) is consistent with the 15 GHz radio image of Felli et al. (1987).

Images of S 206 are shown in Fig. 1\[D\], \[E\], & \[F\]. S 206, ($`l=150.74`$, $`b=0.75`$; also known as NGC 1491), is an evolved H ii region at a Galacto-centric distance of 11.1 kpc (Deharveng et al. (2000)). The excitation is believed to be provided by a single O5 star (Crampton & Fisher (1974)). The 5 GHz radio continuum image shows a classic blister type morphology (Fig. 4 in Deharveng et al. 1976) as described in Icke et al. (1980). Our high resolution images at 613 MHz (Fig. 1\[D\]), 236 MHz (Fig. 1\[E\]) as well as 328 MHz (not shown) show good correspondence to the 5 GHz image of Deharveng et al. (1976). The low resolution 328 MHz image (Fig. 1\[F\]) shows a large low intensity envelope surrounding the core emission.

Images of S 209 are shown in Fig. 1\[G\], \[H\],& \[I\]. S 209 ($`l=151.6`$, $`b=0.24`$; also known as RAFGL 550) is one of the most distant ($`R_G=17.7`$ kpc, Deharveng et al. (2000)) Galactic H ii region. Although the mean size of H ii regions decreases with increasing Galacto-centric distance (Fich & Blitz (1984)), S 209 is unusual in that it has a very large size ($`50`$ pc) for its Galacto-centric distance. The excitation is provided by a cluster of OB stars (Chini & Wink (1984)). Our high resolution 613 MHz map (Fig. 1\[G\]) shows the core region to consist of an asymmetric, incomplete ring like structure. The high resolution image at 328 MHz (not shown here) is morphologically very similar to the 613 MHz image. The 236 MHz image (Fig. 1\[H\]) while showing overall similarity to the 613 MHz and 328 MHz maps, does show some difference in the core region. We are unsure why this should be so. The low resolution 613 MHz image (Fig. 1\[I\]) shows that this region too has an extremely large, low surface brightness envelope, which has also been seen at 2.7 GHz image of Walmsley et al. (1975).

## 4 Discussion

We use these low frequency images to estimate electron temperatures and emission measures of the compact cores of the H ii regions. If we approximate these cores to be homogeneous and spherically symmetric, then the flux $`S`$ is given by

$$S=3.07\times 10^2T_\mathrm{e}\nu ^2\mathrm{\Omega }(1\mathrm{e}^{\tau (\nu )})$$
(1)
$$\tau (\nu )=1.643a\times 10^5\nu ^{2.1}EMT_\mathrm{e}^{1.35}$$
(2)
(Mezger & Henderson (1967)) where $`S`$ is the integrated flux density in Jy, $`T_\mathrm{e}`$is the electron temperature in Kelvin, $`\nu `$ is the frequency of observation in MHz, $`\tau `$ is the optical depth, $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ is the solid angle subtended by the source in steradian, (which in this case, since the cores are unresolved, is taken to be the synthesized beam size), and $`EM`$ is the emission measure in cm-6 pc. The emission measure $`EM`$ is defined as $`n_\mathrm{e}{}_{}{}^{2}\mathrm{d}l`$; the integral being taken along the line of sight and averaged over the beam. $`a`$ is a correction factor which depends both upon the temperature and frequency. We have used an average value of $`a`$ as 0.98 (using table 6 of Mezger & Henderson (1967)) for the frequency range 200–600 MHz and $`T_\mathrm{e}`$$``$ 10 000 K. The H ii region cores can be modeled by solving equations (1) and (2) iteratively for different $`EM`$ and $`T_\mathrm{e}`$. The fitting procedure converges rapidly when observations at least two frequencies are available and the frequencies are such that the H ii region is optically thick at one frequency and optically thin at the other.

We measured the peak flux densities of cores after convolving the images of a H ii region at different frequencies to a common angular resolution (i.e. the source size $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ was taken to be $`1.133\times \theta _a\times \theta _b`$, where $`\theta _a`$ and $`\theta _b`$ are the half power points of the common convolved beam). The best fit values for $`T_\mathrm{e}`$and $`EM`$ as obtained from the fitting procedure described above are listed in table 2, and the observed and model fluxes are plotted in Fig. 2. The columns in table 2 are as follows. col. (1): Name of the H ii region, col. (2): Coordinates (right ascension, declination) of the core for which the electron temperature has been measured, col. (3): The frequency of observation, col. (4): Integrated flux of the entire H ii region, col. (5): Area over which radio emission is detected, and over which the flux has been integrated to get the value listed in col. (4), col. (6): Estimated electron temperature of the core, col. (7): Estimated emission measure of the core.

The electron temperature of S 201 is estimated to be $`7070\pm 1100`$ K toward the peak radio emission. The earlier estimate for $`T_\mathrm{e}`$toward S 201 was $`5000`$ K based on non-detection of \[O iii\]$`\lambda \lambda `$4959, 5007 (Mampaso et al. (1989)). The electron temperature of $`8350\pm 1600`$ K, derived for the core of S 206 (knot–A in Fig. 1\[C\]) is in reasonable agreement with previous measurements, viz. $`8400\pm 800`$ K obtained using the H$`94\alpha `$ recombination line by Carral et al. (1981), and $`9118`$ K obtained from the \[O iii\]$`\lambda \lambda `$4363, 5007 lines ratio (Deharveng et al. (2000)). The emission measure is $`3.93(\pm 0.40)\times 10^5`$ cm-6 pc, consistent with the value obtained by Deharveng et al. (1976). For S 209, the electron temperature corresponding to the peak radio emission at 613 MHz is estimated to be $`\mathrm{10\hspace{0.17em}855}\pm 3670`$ K, somewhat higher than the value of $`8280`$ K obtained using the H$`137\beta `$ recombination line by Churchwell et al. (1978) but in reasonable agreement with the estimate of $`\mathrm{11\hspace{0.17em}000}`$ K which was derived from H$`91\alpha `$ & H$`114\beta `$ recombination lines (Balser et al. (1994)).

Figure 3 is a plot of the electron temperature vs. Galacto-centric distance for the three H ii regions studied in this paper. The solid line is the relationship obtained by Deharveng et al. (2000) from a sample of six H ii regions spanning Galacto-centric distances from 6.6 to 14.8 kpc. The data for S 209 shows that this relationship appears to be valid even out to Galacto-centric distance of $`18`$ kpc.

If there are systematic radial temperature gradients within the cores of H ii regions, the $`T_\mathrm{e}`$estimated by various methods, viz., radio continuum, RRLs, and \[O iii\]$`\lambda \lambda `$4363, 5007 lines ratio (all of which probe different physical regions) would be discordant. The radio continuum observations at low frequencies are more sensitive to outermost regions of the core of the nebula (due to the high optical depths at these frequencies). The temperature estimates from high frequency RRLs (which is where most of the observations exist) are weighted toward regions of low temperature. Finally, estimates of $`T_\mathrm{e}`$from the \[O iii\] lines ratio are expected to be weighted toward high temperature regions due to the high cooling rate provided by \[O iii\] lines. Since, our estimates of $`T_\mathrm{e}`$are in general consistent with those obtained from RRLs as well as from \[O iii\] lines, any temperature gradients within the cores of these H ii regions must be smaller than the combined uncertainties in these different $`T_\mathrm{e}`$measurements. Similar concordance between $`T_\mathrm{e}`$measured using these different methods have been obtained for W 51 (Subrahmanyan & Goss (1995)) and M 17 (Subrahmanyan & Goss (1996), Wilson et al. (1997)). Several authors have discussed the possibility of small scale temperature fluctuations in the cores of H ii regions (Peimbert (1967), Rubin et al. (1998) and references therein), these cannot be ruled out based on our observations alone).

## 5 Conclusions

Three outer galaxy H ii regions, S 201, S 206 and S 209 have been imaged at meter wavelengths using the GMRT. The images of these H ii regions have been obtained at a resolution of less than a pc. This is the highest resolution achieved for any H ii region at such low radio frequencies. All three H ii regions show structures down to our resolution limit. The high resolution images near 610 MHz of these H ii regions show a good correspondence with the radio continuum images at $`cm`$ wavelengths. The low resolution radio images show that these H ii regions are surrounded by large diffuse envelopes. The high resolution radio images have allowed us to get estimates of $`T_\mathrm{e}`$of these H ii regions. From these measurements we find that :

(1) the estimates of $`T_\mathrm{e}`$are in general consistent with that obtained from RRLs and \[O iii\]$`\lambda \lambda `$4363, 5007 line measurements, and
(2) the measured temperatures are consistent with a linear increase of $`T_\mathrm{e}`$with Galacto-centric distance until $`R_G18`$ kpc.

###### Acknowledgements.

We thank the staff of the GMRT that made these observations possible. The GMRT is run by the National Centre for Radio Astrophysics of the Tata Institute of Fundamental Research. We are grateful to K.S. Dwarakanath and R. N. Mohan for useful discussions. We thank (late) K. R. Anantharamaiah for useful suggestions and comments on an earlier version of this paper. We are also grateful to one of the referees, L. Deharveng, for many comments which greatly improved the contents and readability of this paper. AO thanks NCRA-TIFR for providing hospitality during his stay at NCRA.


text:
# Determination of the freeze-out temperature by the isospin thermometer

## I Introduction

Different mechanisms of fragment production can be studied within peripheral nucleus-nucleus collisions: Spallation and fission have been under investigation for many years. In the last decade a so-called multifragmentation reaction, which leads to the total disintegration of heavy nuclei into light and intermediate-mass fragments (IMF) arouse large interest ALADIN\_MSU ; INDRA ; EOS . Originally it was motivated by studying the liquid-gas type phase transition in nuclear matter Bondorf95 ; Pochodzalla95 , as well as the role of thermal and spinodal instabilities in the disintegration of finite nuclei. At high-energy collisions the multifragmentation share was found to correspond to 10–20 $`\%`$ of the total reaction cross-section, and its contribution to the yield of the IMF (with charges $`Z`$=3–30) is crucially important. With increasing excitation energy of the thermal source, the transition from the evaporation and fission decay mechanisms to the multifragmentation is smooth: The probability for the formation of one compound nucleus decreases, whereas the multifragmentation appears first as a freeze-out state with two hot fragments and progressively involves three, four, and many fragment channels with increasing excitation. In this mechanism, a considerable part of the available excitation energy goes into the disintegration of the system, but not into increasing the temperature of the fragments Bondorf95 .

## II Experimental investigation of the reaction mechanism

Multifragmentation is the field of intense investigation of the ALADIN (GSI, Darmstadt) collaboration ALADIN\_MSU , with an instrument whose total acceptance allows for the full counting of the produced fragments and their correlations. This precious information could be analyzed as in figure 1 (left), where a study of 238U impinging on a copper target at $`1`$ $`A`$ GeV Schuttauf96 ; ALADIN\_MSU  is shown: for each collision we have a collection of fragments of different $`Z`$, we chose the two residues having the highest $`Z`$ and plot one against the other for each event. The fission products, individuated by two fragments of about half the projectile charge, are well separated. The region of multifragmentation, characterized by high multiplicity, small impact parameter and identified in the low-$`Z`$ corner shows a gradual transition towards more and more peripheral collisions, where fragments of about half the projectile charge are correlated to very light residues like lithium, beryllium or boron. The aim of this paper is to discuss the possibility that the heavy fragments could provide a complementary information on the multifragmentation process.

By concentrating on the heavy residue, we can take advantage of the high-resolution spectrometer FRS (GSI, Darmstadt) FRS , which was designed to obtain exclusive information on the heavy fragments. The precise kinematical identification of the FRS provides unambiguous information on the de-excitation process that generated the observed residues: the measurement of the velocity distribution of each fragment enables to clearly disentangle fragmentation and fission products. In addition, the measurements of the energy loss and the mass-to-charge ratio lead to the full isotopic identification. A very systematic overview is shown in picture 1 (right) for the collision of 238U with lead at $`1`$ $`A`$ GeV Enqvist99 : we can clearly recognize the region of electromagnetic-induced fission: this process originates from low-excited projectile-like prefragments and, consequently, produces very neutron-rich residues. The area of high-energy fission, generated by more excited prefragments, is less neutron rich. Fragmentation products, expected to originate from a long evaporation process starting from very highly excited prefragments, populate the neutron-deficient side of the isotopic chart. This analysis, based on the knowledge of the reaction process, establishes a connection between the isotopic distribution of the residues and the excitation energy introduced at the beginning of the evaporation. In the following, we will restrict this analysis to fragmentation only and continue to study how the neutron excess can provide indications on the reaction mechanism.

## III Study of the neutron excess of the fragmentation residues

The classical model describes fragmentation as a two-stage process Gaimard91 : highly excited prefragments are generated in an initial fast stage, usually described as an abrasion process (e.g. for nucleus-nucleus collisions) or an intra-nuclear cascade process (mostly for hadron-nucleus collisions). The time required by the fast stage is of the order of $`20`$ to $`50`$ fm/c. The resulting prefragment, whose neutron-to-proton ratio is initially close to the projectile, will then experience a sequential decay (or evaporation) dominated by neutron emission. The role of the second process is to change the neutron-to-proton ratio and to guide the isotopic production towards a universal evaporation corridor, where the initially more favourite neutron emission is finally balanced by proton emission. If the excitation energy introduced by the fast stage were entirely removed by sequential decay, the evaporation would be long enough for the residues to end up in the universal corridor and lose the memory of the projectile.

This classical picture is in contradiction with recent experimental data on fragmentation of neutron-rich projectiles. The isotopic cross-sections of 238U fragments, produced in a lead target at $`1`$ $`A`$ GeV Enqvist99 , show an increasing deviation from the corridor (represented by the two-stage model calculation Gaimard91  in figure 2) for decreasing Z towards higher neutron numbers. As presented in figure 2, the measured fragmentation residues of 238U even have the tendency to cross the stability line; this is very surprising because, with respect to $`\beta `$ stability (equal Fermi levels of protons and neutrons), the evaporation of protons is suppressed by the Coulomb barrier.

The increasing deviation from the evaporation corridor indicates that, for collisions expected to be more and more violent, less and less excitation energy is available for the evaporation stage; evidently, in the classic picture of the fragmentation mechanism, an intermediate process that removed this excess of energy is missing.

Figure 2 presents the evolution of the mean neutron-to-proton ratio of the residues produced by the fragmentation of different systems. We infer that there is an ordering of the residues in relation to the neutron excess of the projectile: the isotopic distributions of different fragmenting systems do not collapse on the same universal evaporation corridor, but they are more neutron rich for more neutron-rich projectiles, showing an evident memory effect related to the neutron-to-proton ratio of the projectile.

## IV A thermometer based on the neutron excess

We can infer that the present data (figure 2) are closely related to the observation of multifragmentation. We will analyze the data with two models. First, a three-stage model is used, which describes the multifragmentation as an intermediate break-up stage after the high-energy nucleon-nucleon collisions and before the sequential decay in a rather schematic way. Secondly, we have chosen the Statistical Multifragmentation Model (SMM) as a dedicated model for multifragmentation, which is very effective in the description of the experimental data (see e.g. Bondorf95 ; Botvina95 ). The most intensively investigated signature for the onset of multifragmentation is the production of several about equal-size fragments. However, also in accordance with SMM, the fragments do not need to be necessarily about equal-size. In peripheral collisions, we could expect a disassembly of the hot primary fragment into a heavy residue, accompanied by clusters and very light nuclei: in this case, when one heavy fragment is observed in the FRS, we still have indication of the onset of the multifragmentation phenomenon Bondorf95 .

The experimental data can be reproduced introducing an intermediate process that, right after the fast stage, removes part of the mass and energy. This stage can be described as a break-up process: the compression caused by the high excitation energy and, eventually, by the collision dynamics provides a high internal pressure. A consequent expansion and disassembly of the system will remove part of the initial excitation energy. This process might be related to a liquid-gas-like phase transition. A fundamental assumption for the process is the conservation of the mean neutron to charge-number ratio $`<N>/Z`$. The nearly conservation of the $`<N>/Z`$ ratio is also predicted by SMM Botvina01 . The break-up stage ends when the system reaches the freeze-out transition, and re-condensates in an ensemble of cooled fragments. If we assume that thermodynamic equilibrium is established in the system at the transition point, we can consider a freeze-out temperature as a major parameter of the reaction process. This parameter can in fact be defined as a limiting temperature, since no more than the corresponding excitation energy will be available for the sequential decay. As a result, also the length of the evaporation process will be limited and determined by this value. We assume that the sequential decay will start from an excitation energy corresponding to the freeze-out temperature.

The deviation of the experimental data from the universal corridor suggests a new tool to measure the length of the sequential decay and, consequently, the value of the freeze-out temperature. Between the fast stage and the evaporation stage a new step has been added in order to describe the effect of the break-up. We should observe that the treatment of the partitioning of the spectator into the break-up products affects the final cross section, but has no effect on the neutron excess of the isotopic distribution of the residues; the quantity $`<N>/Z`$ of the residues is only sensible to the value of the freeze-out temperature. This assumption motivates the calculation shown in figure 3, where the experimental data of fragmentation of 238U on a lead target are compared with a set of calculations. The treatment of the partitioning was simplified by a parameterisation; the description of the neutron excess of the residues is determined by the freeze-out temperature as the only free parameter of the calculation: when this parameter has low values, the break-up is dominating and the residues are too neutron rich. Inversely, for high values, the break-up tends to be suppressed and the isotopic production ends up in the evaporation corridor.

The measurement fixes the freeze-out temperature in a range between $`5`$ and $`6`$ MeV. Missing the complete data for systems covering a wide range of the neutron excess, we still cannot determine whether the freeze-out temperature is a constant value or a function of $`N/Z`$. However, the choice of around $`5`$ MeV provides a very satisfactory reproduction of the available data Schmidt02 .

A more elaborate physical description of the partitioning is provided by SMM. In Fig. 4 we present the results of a series of SMM calculations for the disintegration of a 238U source. The excitation energy at break-up was taken as a parameter. The calculation was performed for excitation energies of $`1`$, $`1.5`$, $`2`$, $`2.5`$ and $`8`$ MeV, corresponding to mean temperatures of $`3.1`$, $`3.9`$, $`4.4`$, $`4.9`$ and $`7`$ MeV, respectively. With increasing temperature the break up generates more excited fragments, and the mean neutron excess of the residues approaches the evaporation corridor. This calculation led to about the same results as presented in Fig. 3: also in this case a remarkable agreement with the data is obtained for a freeze-out temperature of around $`5`$ MeV. An important finding is the independence of the temperature from the mass of the residues. The observed universality is an indication that the limiting freeze-out temperature is rather independent of the initial conditions.

## V Effect of the break-up on the mass-distribution

We investigate now the effect of the break-up in recent data of fragmentation of 56Fe Napolitani01  in a proton target at $`1`$ $`A`$ GeV, measured in inverse kinematics at the FRS. This is an interesting case to study the generality of the break-up process and its extension to cases where the excitation energy of the system is neither high enough to be dominated by thermal instability, nor too low to exclude some break-up events. However, 56Fe is not neutron rich and the isotopic distribution is not expected to deviate from the evaporation corridor. To observe the effect of thermal instability, we should then look for a different signature like, for instance, the mass distribution.

As was established in previous studies (see e.g. references in Bondorf95 ), in reactions where a considerable energy is transferred to the thermal source, the multifragmentation influences essentially the yield of the residues. The ALADIN fragmentation data provide a typical example of multifragmentation obtained in peripheral nucleus-nucleus collisions at high energy Botvina95 . It was also found that this process takes place in reactions induced by high-energy protons. In Figure 5, we present the results of the analysis performed in Botvina90  concerning inclusive yields of fragments from tantalum Grover62  and gold Kaufman76  targets. The theoretical calculations were done within cascade, evaporation, and fission models which ignore the multifragment break-up stage, and, alternatively, with the same models including the multifragmentation additionally. In the last case the INC (Dubna version) and SMM were used. We can clearly see that fragments with $`A=1060`$ can be explained only by multifragmentation. However, the yield is not fully reproduced with the INC+SMM calculations. An additional correction of the parameters (masses and excitation energies) of the after-cascade residual nuclei is necessary. We can attribute this additional preequilibrium process to the expansion of the residues toward the freeze-out volume Bondorf95 .

We applied the same investigation to study the reaction of 56Fe on proton at $`1`$ $`A`$ GeV. Such a system is expected to produce a broad distribution of the residues in excitation energy depending on the impact parameter and fluctuations during the preequilibrium process. In general, nucleus-proton reactions at about $`1`$ $`A`$ GeV generate too low excited system to undergo a multifragmentation event but, nevertheless, 56Fe is light enough to still reach the break-up temperature. A very indicative way to discriminate the possible break-up events is presented in figure 6 (left): the plot shows a collection of calculated prefragments, generated by the fast stage, distributed according to their mass and excitation energy. The region above the energy corresponding to a freeze-out temperature of $`5`$ MeV is hot enough to undergo a break-up stage. The region below collects the prefragments expected to start the sequential decay immediately after the fast stage.

As shown in figure 6 (top), three intranuclear cascade codes (BRIC Duarte , INCL4 Boudard01 , ISABEL Yariv79 ) coupled with the same evaporation code (ABLA) reveal to severely under-predict the experimental data for the lighter half of the mass distribution (figure 6, top). Inversely, the introduction of a break-up stage (calculation performed with BRIC coupled with SMM) provides a satisfactory reproduction of the measurement. A slight discrepancy in the yields of fragments with mass numbers $`A>A_{target}/2`$ is probably caused by the discussed uncertainty of the parameters of the excited residues produced after the intra-nuclear cascade stage: the hybrid model used to reproduce the data is still too simple to correctly describe the transition from the fast stage to the break-up, and the inclusion of a preequilibrium process could be needed. In figure 6 (bottom) it is possible to observe that the light part of the mass distribution is mainly populated by break-up events. A very interesting result revealed by the experiment is the tendency for the cross sections to increase in the region of light masses: the only mechanism able to reproduce this characteristic seems to be a series of break-up events.

## VI Conclusions

The analysis of recent experimental data revealed the influence of multifragmentation to be more general than expected. In nucleus-nucleus reactions, the signature for the onset of multifragmentation is not only carried by the lightest fragments, but it extends towards the intermediate-mass fragments. The break-up process does not only describe the reactions at small impact parameter, but it should be taken into account in peripheral collisions as well. Moreover, the memory of the $`N/Z`$ of the projectile reflected in the neutron excess of the residues is not only an experimental evidence of the generality of multifragmentation, but it is also a new tool to study the reaction mechanism. The study of the relation between the isotopic distribution of the residues and the break-up process opens up new possibilities of investigation: the combination between the isotopic identification (FRS) and the measurement of the multiplicity (ALADIN) can provide a new insight about the role of the impact parameter on multifragmentation.

In the case of nucleon-nucleus reactions, the impact of thermal instability is also more general then expected. We have experimental evidence that the fragmentation of light nuclei like 56Fe in a proton target at $`1`$ $`A`$ GeV, shows similar features as in the case of proton-induced fragmentation of heavy nuclei at high energy (5–10 GeV range). Disregarding the break-up process in the complete description of nucleon-nucleus collisions could lead to an underprediction of the yields of the light residues by several orders of magnitude, even at beam energies around $`1`$ $`A`$ GeV.